N Criminal Appeal No 264 of 1978
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 31 3 1978 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No 59776
AN Mulla and SK Jain for the Appellant
OP Rana for the Respondent
The Judgment of VR Krishna Iyer PN Shinghal and D A Desai JJ was delivered by Krishna Iyer JPS Kailasam J gave a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and A D Koshal J 1091 KRISHNA IYER J Exordially speaking the point for decision is short but its legal import and human portent are deep sounding in constitutional values and meriting incisive examination
Where the question wears a simple look but its answer strikes at life and liberty we must proceed on the inarticulate major premise of human law as the solemn delivery system of human justice
In formal terms the problem to be resolved is the vires of Order XXI Rule 151 c of the Supreme Court Rules the Rules for short but in juristic terms it turns on the inflexible stages as against its facultative facets of an appellate hearing when it is a first appear against a death sentence or life imprisonment
More particularly is an appeal to the Supreme Court falling within the scope of article 1341 or the enlarged jurisdiction permitted by article 1342 liable to shorthand hearing and peril of summary dismissal Brevi manu the appellant urges that article 134 of the Constitution compels this Court to hear and dispose of criminal appeals of the grave categories covered by it not exparte as Order XXI Rule 151 c of the Rules permits but in extenso and only after notice to the State and with the record of the case before it
Therefore the Rule is bad
Any legal issue of profound impact if regarded by Judges literally and not creatively may be given short shrift especially if counsel is more assertive than explorative produces more heat than light and the text to be interpreted lends itself to one sense on the surface and another in the deeper layers
But when the consequences of the construction can be calamitous and the subject matter involves the right to life and long loss of liberty a final court like ours must reflect on the meaning of meanings the human values which illumine our legal system and the ends of justice the means of law must serve
The heart and the head interact and interpret
A thumb nail sketch of the sequence of facts may be necessary to get a hang of the constitutional core of the case
Several persons including the appellants were accused of murder and other violent offences but were acquitted by the Sessions Judge
The State carried an appeal to the High Court against the acquittal of all the 18 accused persons
In an elaborate judgment the High Court found the case of the prosecution proved although it confirmed the acquittal of quite a few
The convicted accused 12 in number were awarded life imprisonment under section 302 read with section 149 IPC and lesser terms of imprisonment for other offences
Thereupon the convicted appellants preferred an appeal to this Court under section 2a of the  1092 for short the Enlargement Act
This appeal was listed for preliminary hearing ex parte under Rule 151c of the Rules as amended in 1978
When the case was opened at the preliminary hearing counsel for the appellants contended that as an inalienable incident of a statutory appeal his clients were entitled to a full fledged hearing after notice to the State and not an abbreviated disposal in the shape of a preliminary hearing however long that hearing might be
Thereupon the court passed the following order The appellants have challenged the constitutional validity of clause c of sub rule 1 of rule 15 of order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules which enables an appeal of the kind with which we are concerned to be placed for hearing exparte before the Court for ad mission
In that view of the matter we think that unless the question of the constitutional validity of the rule is 1 decided we cannot have a preliminary hearing of this appeal for admission
Let the records therefore be placed before the Hon ble the Chief Justice for giving such directions as he may deem fit and proper This Bench has come to be seized of the case in the constitutional setting
Such is the scenario the last and most crucial stage of  which is the hearing before this Constitution Bench
A little elucidation of the legal matrix which has given rise to the contentions may be useful
This Court has jurisdiction over a wide range and long reach of litigation under article 136 of the Constitution which includes the power to grant leave to appeal in criminal matters
But this is a discretionary jurisdiction with drastic self imposed limitations rarely realised by the gambling litigant and has hardly any semblance of an absolute right of appeal necessarily fol lowed by a full debate after notice to the adversary
But a segment of criminal cases standing out as a deadly category is however dealt with separately by article 134
In a short hand form sub clause 1 clothes an accused person who has been acquitted by the trial court but sentenced to death at the appellate level or has been tried by the High Court by withdrawal of the case from any other court subordinate to it and in such trial has been visited with death sentence or has secured a certificate that his case is of such great moment as to qualify for pronouncement by the Supreme Court with a right shall we say a constitutional right of appeal to this Court
More over under clause 2 of this Article Parliament may make law 1093 for conferring a statutory right of appeal on other classes of convicts
A Pursuant to this power Parliament has enacted the  whereby persons acquitted by the trial court but awarded imprisonment lor life or for ten years and more enjoy a statutory right of appeal
The proviso to Article 1341 enables this Court to make provisions subject to which appeals under sub clause c of Article 134 shall lie
These provisions are to be made under clause 1 d of Article 145 which in specific terms deals with rules as to the entertainment of appeals under sub clause c of clause 1 of Article 134
We are not concerned with these rules which relate to the entertainment of appeals or provisions subject to which the appeal may be instituted and do not trench upon the right of appeal or the manner of hearing
But Article 1451 b enables the Supreme Court to make rules inter alia as to the procedure for hearing appeals
One such rule is Order XXI Rule 15 which warrants preliminary hearing and disposal of all categories of appeals covered by Article 1342
The fate of the present appeal hung in the balance at such a preliminary hearing and counsel challenged the vires of the rule itself
In its wake has come the present hearing
This sets the stage for a more comprehensive approach to the constitutional problems arising in the case
We must make i clear that we are not concerned with the merits of the appeal at all but are confined to a consideration of the validity of the impugned rule
If we hold that the said rule is ultra vires and further hold that there shall be a regular full dress hearing of the appeal a preliminary hearing will be obviated and notice in the appeal will have to go to the State
It requires to be specifically mentioned although there is no hint about its advertence at the earlier preliminary hearing that the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 has a fasciculus of provisions relating to appeals the manner of their hearing and the procedure for their disposal which is comprehensive enough to cover the present category embraced by Order XXI Rule 15lc
Therefore the effect of the Sections in the Code hearing on the issue under discussion may also have to be studied before we finally pronounce on the legality Or a preliminary hearing in a criminal appeal filed in exercise of a constitutional or statutory right
Our consideration falls into two chapters as it were the first and more important turning on the constitutional provisions vis a vis Order XXI Rule lc and the second turning on the construction and impact of section 384 Cr
PC Taking up the constitutional 1094 aspects first we may proceed to state right away the complex of provisions relevant to the discussion and the perspective in which we must read their message
article 134 of the Constitution confers criminal appellate jurisdiction on this Court 134
Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters 1 An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court a has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or b has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death or c certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court Provided that an appeal under sub clause c shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause 1 of Article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or require
2  Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgment final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law No argument is needed to realise the gravity of the subject cover ed by the first two clauses of the article death sentence for the first time or in reversal of an acquittal
Human life is too dear to be deprived of by a death sentence without so much as a single appeal after its award
Our founding faith in human rights is the only warrant for the entrustment of this appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court which is far removed from the trial court and is intercepted by the High Court an elevated tribunal manned by judges of proven calibre
The symbolic meaning is obvious
Life is no matter for easy despatch even by the judicial process and a serious second 1095 look is the minimum that the State owes to the citizen before his gallowed farewell
To truncate the fullness of appellate scrutiny into ex parte disposals despite the deliberate insertion by the framers of the Constitution of an express provision by a procedural knife may often frustrate their profound concern
Judicial professionalism at higher level is particularly conscientious and careful but all professionalism suffers by custom from scelerosis in practice
And so n full scale hearing in a first appeal is the fair insistence of the Constitution when the risk is to precious life
We are aware that the disposal of appeals involving death penalty receives anxious concern and deep reflection on the part of judges
We are conscious that the grave stakes forbid judges from dismissing appeals without satisfying themselves against error
But human limitations perfunctoriness of counsel oversight of some material hardly highlighted in the judgment under appeal and the misfortune that ex parte examination dulls attention while debate at the bar sparks mental plugs these too are realities
Likewise article 134 1 c spells a measure of seriousness because the High Court which has heard the case certifies solemnly that it involves questions of such moment that the Supreme Court itself must resolve them
To dispose of such a matter by a preliminary hearing is to cast a reflection on the High Court s capacity to understand the seriousness of a certification
Now it is relevant to read article 1361
Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court 1 Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter the Supreme Court may in its discretion grant special leave to appeal from any judgment decree determination sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India
A plenary discretion vests in the Supreme Court to deign or decline to grant leave to appeal against any conviction or sentence
Before deciding to grant or reject such leave the court accords an oral hearing after perusing all the papers produced
Once leave is granted is heard after notice to the State in full panoply
After leave the appeal is born
Then it ripens into fullness and is disposed of when both sides are present
No appeal after leave is dismissed summarily or ex parte
The relevance If article 136 in an examination of article 134 is this
If article 136 gives a discretionary power to grant 1096 leave to appeal or to dismiss in limine after an ex parte hearing or after issue of notice if the court so chooses article 134 which gives a constitutional right to appeal as it were must stand on a higher footing lest the Constitution makers be held to have essayed in supererogation
Surely there is much more hearing  content in an absolute appellate right than in a precarious special leave  motion
Jurisprudentially a right is larger than a permission
What is irresistible is that article 134 puts the momentous class of cases covered by it beyond the discretionary compass of article 136 and within the compulsory area of full hearing such as would follow upon leave being granted under article 1361
But this is not the end of the journey
For a full hearing may not obligate dragging the opposite side to court involving expense and delay
Fullness of hearing of the proponent is not incompatible with non hearing of the opponent where after appreciating all that could be urged in support of the cause there is no need felt to call upon the other side as where the proposition is groundless frivolous or not prima facie statable
The ambit of appellate hearing may have to be explored in the constitutional context to which we will advert later
The next step necessitates setting out as an integral part of the comprehensive picture article 145 145
Rules of Court etc 1 Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament the Supreme Court may from time to time with the approval of the President make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court including a   b rules as to the procedure for hearing appeals and other matters pertaining to appeals including the time within which appeals to the Court are to l e entered c   cc   d rules as to the entertainment of appeals under s clause c or clause l of article 134 e   i   g   1097 h   i rules providing for the summary determination of appeal which appears to the Court to be frivolous or vexatious or brought for the purpose of delay j  
This Court has framed rules under this article
The pertinent rule which is impugned as ultra vires is Order XXI Rule 151 c which may usefully be read here 15
The petition of appeal shall be registered and numbered as soon as it is lodged
Each of the following categories of appeals on being registered shall be put up for hearing ex parte before the Court which may either dismiss it summarily or direct issue of notice to all necessary parties or may make such orders as the circumstances of the case may require namely a   b   c an appeal under sub clause a or sub clause b of clause 1 of article 134 of the Constitution or under the 28 of 1970 or under section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 2 of 1974
Plainly this rule clothes the court with power to shorten the life of an appeal even under Article 134 by dismissing it ex parte summarily
Is this abbreviatory power absonent with the appellate scheme envisaged in article 134 and therefor excessive or offensive and void  Or is the rule valid because it does not bear upon the substantive right of appeal but relates to the procedure for hearing and fall squarely within article 1451b  This is the main crux of the debate
It would be noticed that article 1342 empowers Parliament to expand the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain criminal appeals
Parliament in exercise of this power enacted the for short the Enlargement Act
The relevant section sec 2 states H 2
Enlarged appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters
Without prejudice to the powers 1098 conferred on the Supreme Court by clause 1 of Act 134 of the Constitution an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court a has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a period of not less than tell years b has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any Court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a period of not less than ten years
Thus a right to appeal to the Supreme Court is given to convicts whom the High Court has for the first time sentenced to life imprisonment or to a term of or above ten years of rigorous imprisonment
There is no doubt that Parliament in its grave concern for long incarceration being subject to great scrutiny at the highest level if first inflicted by the High Court granted a right of appeal in such cases and equated it with that granted under article 1341a and b
So what applies to death sentence cases applies to life term cases too and this must be borne in mind in the interpretative process
This emphatic import is clear once we excerpt the relevant part of the Objects and Reasons While sub clauses a and b of article 1341 of the Constitution confer upon the accused an absolute right of appeal clause c confers upon the High Court a discretion to grant a certificate to the accused to appeal in cases not falling under sub clauses a and b
The grant of certificate under article 1341 c is not a matter of course
The certificate is granted only where there has been an infringement of the essential principles of justice or there is substantial question of law or principle involved in short the certificate would not be granted unless there are exceptional and special circumstances
The Supreme Court has also held that the conditions pre requisite for the exercise af the discretionary power to grant a certificate under article 134 1 c cannot be precisely formulated but it should be exercised sparingly and not to convert the Supreme Court into an ordinary court of criminal appeal
1099 An accused person has no absolute right of appeal even A in circumstances mentioned in clauses a and b of article 1341 if the High Court sentences him to life imprisonment or imprisonment of 10 or more years
In such a case his appeal would be admitted in special and exceptional cir cumstances only either under article 1341 c or article 136 of the Constitution
    It is therefore proposed to enlarge the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court empowering it to entertain and hear appeals also in cases mentioned in sub clauses a and b of clause 2 of the Bill
 What is created is an unconditional right of appeal nothing less and wider than is enjoyed under article 136
We have stated at the outset that for satisfactory understanding of the problem and its solution certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which cover the same ground need to be dealt with
We will advert to them briefly here conscious that the crucial issue is constitutional
The Code cannot control or contradict the Constitution as the stream cannot rise higher than the source
The provisions of the Code invaluable as canalising the exercise of the appellate power must be informed by and be subservient to the normative import of the Supreme Lex lest they run aground and be wrecked
Chapter XXIX deals with appeals
Taking cognizance of the Enlargement Act the Code has enacted Sec 3741 and Sec 379 which perhaps are redundant save for completeness
These are new provisions not found in the Code of 1898 and may be reproduced 3741
Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extra ordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court
Where the High Court has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and convicted him and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a term of ten years or more
he may appeal to the Supreme Court
Section 384 is significant because it has a decisive bearing on the State of appeals like the present
This Section is in part a mechanical or meaningful reproduction of the corresponding provisions 421 in the vintage Code
1100 A casual persual discloses that section 384 is an omnibus provision embracing all appeals big and small grave and goofy involving a petty fine or inflicting for the first time a hanging sentence
And regardless of the stakes the appellate court is given the pervasive power to dismiss the appeal summarily and worse even without calling for the record of the case and without recording its reasons if the Court is higher than the Court of Session
At first blush a blanket power to dismiss summarily ex parte sans record of the case sans record of reasons even where an acquitted accused is sentenced to death for the first time by the High Court is neither human law nor human justice if our jurisprudence is sensitized by the humanity of the Preamble to the Constitution or responsive to the vibrant commitment to civilized values
Petrified print processed through the legislative mint becomes living law when and only when its text is tuned to the humane note of the Constitution
We will dwell on the harmonics of the Constitution first since the fundamental note must emanate from it
I The question then is whether a statutory right of appeal necessarily spells the full unfoldment of notice to the respondent sending for the records and record of reasons by a speaking judgment
If the answer is in the affirmative the survival of Order XXI Rule 151 c is perilous
Reaching the same result by resort to artificial respiration from section 384 may have to be considered
But anticipating our conclusion to avoid suspense we sustain both the provisions by reading down their scope substance and intendment
The appellants have an undeniable right of appeal but what are the necessary components of a hearing when such a right is exercised  Counsel for the appellant insisted that an absolute right of appeal as he described it casts an inflexible obligation on the court to send For the record of the case to hear both parties and to make a reasoned judgment
Therefore to scuttle the appeal by a summary hearing on a preliminary posting absent record ex parte and absolved from giving reasons is to be absolutist a position absonant with the mandate of the Enlargement Act and indeed of the Constitution in Article 134 1 
Counsel s ipse dixit did not convince us but we have pondered over the issue in depth being disinclined summarily to dismiss
At the threshold we have to delineate the amplitude of an appeal not in abstract terms but in the concrete context of Article 134 read with Article 145 and order XXI Rule 15 and section 384 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973
The nature of the appeal process cannot be cast in 1101 a rigid mould as it varies with jurisdictions and systems of jurisprudence
This point has been brought out sharply in Final Appeal
The learned authors ask  But what does appeal  really mean  indeed is it a meaningful term at all in any universal sense  The word is in fact merely a term of convenient usage part of a system of linguistic shorthand which accepts the need for a penumbra of uncertainty in order to achieve universal comprehensibility at a very low level of exactitude
Thus while appeal  is a generic term broadly meaningful to all lawyers in describing a feature common to a wide range of legal systems it would be misleading to impute a precise meaning to the term or to assume on the grounds that the word or its translated equivalent has international currency that the concept of an appeal means the same thing in a wide range of systems
On any orthodox definition an appeal includes three basic elements a decision usually the judgment of a court or the ruling of an administrative body from which an appeal is made a person or persons aggrieved by the decision who is often though by no means necessarily party to the original proceedings and a reviewing body ready and willing to entertain the appeal
 The elasticity of the idea is illumined by yet another passage which bears quotation  Appeals  can be arranged along a continuum of increasingly formalised procedure ranging from a concerned man in supplication before his tribal chief to something as jurisprudentially sophisticated as appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States
Like Aneurin Bevan s elephant an appeal can only be described when it walks through the court room door 
The nature of a particular appellate process indeed the character of an entire legal system depends upon a multiplicity of interrelated though largely imponderable factors operating within the system
The structure of the courts the status and rule both objectively and subjectively perceived of judges and lawyers the form of law itself whether for example it is derived from a code or 1102 from judicial precedent modified by statute the attitude of the courts to the authority of decided cases the political and administrative structure of the country concerned whether for example its internal sovereignty is limited by its allegience to a colonizing power
The list of possible factors is endless and their weight and function in the social equation defy precise analysis In short we agree in principle with the sum up of the concept made by the author Appeal as we have stressed covers a multitude of jurisprudential ideas
The layman s expectation of an appeal is very often quite different from that of the lawyer and many an aggrieved plaintiff denied his just  remedy by judge or jury has come upon the disturbing reality that in England a finding of fact can seldom if ever form the basis of an appeal
Similarly a Frenchman accustomed to a narrowly legalistic appeal in cessation subject to subsequent reargument in a court below would find little familiarity in the ponderous finality of the judgment of the House of Lords
And a seventeenth century lawyer accustomed to a painstaking search for trivial mistakes in the court record which formed the basis of the appeal by writ of error would be bewildered by the great flexibility and increased sophistication of a jurisprudential  argument which characterize a modern appeal
 Whatever the protean forms the appellate process may take the goal is justice so that a disgruntled litigant cannot convert his right of appeal into a bull in a china shop breaking down the court system by sufferance of interminable submissions after several tribunals have screened his case and found it fruitless
This throws us back to a definitional evaluation of the precise content of appeal  in the specific constitutional perspective and statutory setting
Once we accept the liquidity of the appellate concept we are logically led into a study of the imperatives of appeal  within the meaning of article 134
Since the right conferred by the Enlargement Act has its source in article 1342 it is fair to attribute common features to the constitutional and statutory rights of appeal in the criminal specialities covered by Order XXI Rule 151 c
The key question is whether a right of appeal casts an inexorable obligation on the Supreme Court not merely to hear the appellant at a preliminary stage but proceed invariably to issue notice to the opposite side and hear him too
Another bone of contention turns on the compulsion to consider the appeal only 1103 after receiving the records in the case from the court below
The core controversy involves a third element namely the inevitable necessity to state reasons for the conclusions as distinguished from the extinguishment of the proceedings with the utmost verbal economy by the use of a single word dismissed 
These triune facets cannot be judged in vacuo but informed by the grim realities surrounding the disposal
Human jurisprudence is not a brooding omnipotence in the sky but a normative science and technology dealing with the work wealth and happiness of mankind as well as its blood toils tears and sweat
The higher the consciousness of the law especially constitutional law the deeper the concern for the worth of the human person that our legal culture since Independence has manifested and the gravity of the consequences of the decision in appeal on life itself invests the concept with some essential features
It is just as well that we remind ourselves of a value setter here
Life and liberty have been the cynosure of special constitutional attention in article 21 the fuller implications whereof have been unrevelled in Maneka Gandhi s case1
When we read the signification of the right of appeal under article 134 we must remember that it is a part of the procedure established by law for the protection of life and personal liberty
Surely law in this setting is a pregnant expression
Bhagwati J in Maneka Gandhi supra stated the position emphatically and since then this Court has followed that prescription and even developed it in humane directions a striking example of which is the recent judgment in Presidention Reference No 1 of 19782 Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements  asks Bhagwati J in the leading opinion and answers Obviously the procedure cannot be arbitrary unfair or unreasonable The principle of reasonableness which legally as well as philosophically is an essential element of equality or non arbitrariness pervades article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with article 14
It must be right and just and fair and not arbitrary fanciful or oppressive otherwise it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of article 21 would not be satisfied
 Holding that natural justice was part of Indian Constitutional jurisprudence the learned Judge quoted Lord Morris of Borth y Gest in Wiseman vs Barneman  3 1104  that the conception of natural justice should at all stages guide those who discharge judicial functions is not merely an acceptable but is an essential part of the philosophy of the law
 Bhagwati J brought out the essence of the concept of natural justice as part of reasonable procedure when he observed The core of it must however remain namely that the person affected must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise
That is why Tucker
LJ emphasised in Russel vs Duke of Norfolk1 that whatever standard of natural justice is adopted one essential is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case
 What opportunity may be regarded as reasonable would necessarily depend on the practical necessities of the situation
It may be a sophisticated full fledged hearing or it may be a hearing which is very brief and minimal
 One of us Krishna Iyer J emphasised the fundamental fairness required by Article 21 in every law that abridges life or liberty Procedure established by law with its lethal potentiality will reduce life and liberty to a precarious plaything if we do not ex necessiate import into those weighty words an adjectival rule of law civilised in its soul fair in its heart and fixing those imperatives of procedural protection absent which the processual tail will wag the substantive head 
An enacted apparition is a constitutional illusion
Processual justice is writ patently on article 21
 We have set out the sweep of Article 21 because the rule framed by this Court namely Order XXI Rule 151c cannot transcend this obligation nor indeed can section 384 of the Code
On the contrary as Bhagwati J has observed in Maneka Gandhi s case supra It is a basic constitutional assumption underlying every statutory grant of power that the authority on which the power is conferred should act constitutionally and not in violation of any fundamental rights
 We have made these general remarks to set the interpretative tone when translating the sense of the expression appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court
Nothing which will render this right illusory or 1105 its fortune chancy can square with the mandate of Article 21
What applies to the right of appeal under section 2a of the Enlargement Act must apply to an appeal under article 1341a and b and therefore it is wiser to be assured of what comports with reasonableness and fairplay in cases covered by the latter category
When an accused is acquitted by the trial court the initial presumption of innocence in his favour is reinforced by the factum of acquittal
If this reinforced innocence is not only reversed in appeal but the extreme penalty of death is imposed on him by the High Court it stands to reason that it requires thorough examination by the Supreme Court
A similar reasoning applies to cases falling under article 1341b
When the High Court trying a case sentences a man to death a higher court must examine the merits to satisfy that a human life shall not be haltered without an appellate review
The next step is whether 3 hearing that is to be extended or the review that has to be made by the Supreme Court in such circumstances can be narrowed down to a consideration in a summary fashion of the necessarily limited record then available before the Court and total dismissal of the appeal if on such a prima facie examination nothing flawsome is brought out by the appellant to the satisfaction of the Court
A single right of appeal is more or less a universal requirement of the guarantee of life and liberty rooted in the conception that men are fallible that Judges are men and that making assurance doubly sure before irrevocable deprivation of life or liberty comes to pass a full scale re examination of the facts and the law is made an integral part of fundamental fairness or procedure
A logical follow up takes us to the reasonable insistence on the full record being made available for the activist play of the appellate judicial mind
The life of the law is not perfection of theory but realisation of justice in the concrete situation of a given system
Considered this way it is common knowledge that a jail appeal or an appeal filed through an advocate does not contain an exhaustive accompaniment of all the evidentiary material or record of proceedings laying bare legal errors in the judicial steps
It is not unusual in the history of this or other countries that a fatal flaw has been discovered by appellate judges leading to a total acquittal although even counsel might not have suspected any lurking lethal illegality
Such a high jurisdiction as is vested by Article 134 calls for an active examination by the judges and such a process will be an ineffectual essay in the absence of the whole record
We therefore think that a preliminary hearing is hardly of any use bearing in mind that what is being dealt with is an affirmation of death sentence for the first time
In this connection we may notice that section 366 of the Code 1106 requires the Court of Session which passes a sentence of death to submit the proceedings to the High Court and rulings insist on an independent appellate consideration of the matter and an examination of all relevant material evidence
The Supreme Court s position is analogous and independent examination of the materials is impossible without the entire records being available
So it is reasonable to hold that before hearing the appeal under Rule 151c of Order XXI ordinarily the records are sent for and are available
Counsel s assistance apart the court itself must apply its mind the stakes being grave enough
The next ingredient contended for is the hearing of the opposite party and notice to him in that behalf
That is to say the appeal shall not be dismissed summarily or after a mere preliminary hearing even with the records on hand but only after notice and debate at the bar
Speaking generally our adversary system finds fulfilment when both sides present rival points of view unearth embedded infirmities and activate the proceeding with the sparks emanating from the clash of arms
Such considerations may not loom large but for the fact that it is a first appeal we are dealing with and the risk is to life itself
Therefore we hold that in the common run of cases the Court must issue notice to the opposite party namely the State and afford a hearing in the presence of both and with the records on hand
The vital aspects of natural justice have been carefully incorporated in our criminal jurisprudence
The recording of reasons is usually regarded as a necessary requirement of fair decision
The obligation to give reasons for decision when consequence of wrong judgment is forfeiture of life or personal liberty for long periods needs no emphasis especially when it is a first appeal following upon a heavy sentence imposed for the first time
The constraint to record reasons secures in black and white what the Judge has in mind and given satisfaction to him who is condemned that what he had had to say has not only been heard  but considered and recorded
article 21 is a binding mandate against blind justice
It is interesting that in Maneka Gandhi s case supra which dealt with a matter of much less significance the denial or impounding of a passport affecting freedom of movement was required to be decided after recording of reasons save in exceptional cases
Far more serious and indeed fatal is the outcome of an appeal under Article 1341a and b of the Constitution and the insistence on recording of reasons is a funadmental requisite of fairness
In this view in the narrow category of cases covered by Article 1341a and b and s2a of the Enlargement Act the subject matter is of sufficient gravity as to justify the 1107 recording of reasons in the ultimate order
The inscrutable face of the sphinx and the unspeaking rejection by the judge are incompatible with fundamental fairness in the critical circumstances of death sentence and life sentence cases for the first time imposed by the court next below
It is true that Judges of the Supreme Court act with utmost caution consideration and consciousness and with full realisation that life and personal liberty cannot be forfeited without at least the trial tribunal and one higher have fully applied their minds
It is unusual for judges at the highest level to be tempted into affirmance of the judgment under appeal merely because on the surface there is copious evidence attractive reasoning and absence of injustice
There is often more than meets the eye which is best left unsaid
All in all the necessity to put down reasons for decisions in the special situations we are considering is interlaced with the element of reasonableness emphasised in Maneka Gandhi s case supra
We hasten to obviate a misapprehension
Where the subject matter is less momentous where two courts have already assessed the evidence and given reasoned decisions pragmatism and humanism legitimate in appropriate cases the passing of judgment at the third tier without giving reasons where the conclusion is one of affirmance
Natural justice cannot be fixed on a rigid frame and fundamental fairness is not unresponsive to circumstances
The very fact that the subject matter is not fraught with loss of life or long incarceration and that the appellate or revisionary authority is a high tribunal which has examined the materials are an assurance of competent and conscientious consideration of the facts and the law
Further protection at the third deck by calling for the records or launching on long ratiocination is a waste of judicial time
Our rules of criminal proceedure and those of other countries with mature systems of justice provide for dismissal at the third level without assigning written reasons not because there are no reasons but because the tardy need to document them hampers the hearing of the many cases in the queue that press upon the time of the court at that level
We uphold Order XXI Rule 151 c of the Rules because it does not have play in certain situations
It must be noted that that provision does not make it obligatory to dispose of all cases summarily or at a preliminary hearing
It is an enabling provision not a compulsive one
The question is whether there is any situation where it can apply at all in the context of article 1341 a and b and section 2a of the Enlargement Act
If there is a room for operation the provision can be sustained although confined to such limited situations as a rule of prudence ripening into a rule of law
1108 Before discussing the categories where the rule will apply let us get out of our way the view that the rule is valid because article 1451 b authorises Procedural invasion of substantive rights is impermissible article 145 authorises only rules of procedure and procedure is  that which regulates the formal steps in an action or other judicial proceeding a form manner and order of conducting suits or prosecutions  This term is commonly opposed to the sum of legal principles constituting the substance of the law and denotes the body of rules whether of practice or of pleading whereby rights are effectuated through the successful application of the proper remedies
1 To go beyond and cut into the flesh of the right itself is ultra vires article 145
Likewise harmonious construction of article 134 and article 145 also leads to the conclusion that the contemplated rules are mere machinery provisions not manacles on the right handcuffing its exercise
Going to the basics an appeal is the right of entering a superior court and invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the court below
An appeal strictly so called is one in which the question is whether the order of the court from which the appeal is brought was right on the materials which that court had before it per Lord Davey Ponnamma vs Arumogam 1905 AC at p390 
A right of appeal where it exists is a matter of substance and not of procedure Colonial Sugar Refining Co vs Irving  Newman vs Klausner Thus the right of appeal is para mount the procedure for hearing canalises so that extravagant prolixity or abuse of process can be avoided and a fair workability provided
Amputation is not procedure while pruning may be
Of course procedure is within the Court s power but where it pares down prejudicially the very right carving the kernal out it violates the provision creating the right
Appeal is a remedial right and if the remedy is reduced to a husk by procedural excess the right became a casualty
That cannot be
So we cannot out down but may canalise the basic right by invoking Article 1451b
1109 Harmoniously read the sequence is simple
The formalities for entertaining certain types of appeal are covered by article 1451 d the manner of hearing and disposal is governed by article 145 1 b and the substantive sweep of the appeal as a method of redressal is found in article 134
Amputation of this anatomy by procedural surgery is doing violence to the constitutional scheme
An appeal is a re hearing and as Viscount Cave laid down It was the duty of a court of appeal in an appeal from a judge sitting alone to make up its own mind not disregarding the judgment appealed from and giving special weight to that judgment where the credibility of witnesses comes into question but with full liberty to draw its own inferences from the facts proved or admitted and to decide accordingly
1 Prof A L Goodhart dealing with appeals on questions of fact in the English Law wrote  it may be suggested with all respect that when the appellate judges are in agreement with the trial judge they take the view that they are bound by his conclusions of fact but when they disagree with his conclusions then they do not hesitate to overrule them if an appellate court has full liberty to draw its own inferences from the facts proved then appeals on so called questions of fact will have a far greater chance of success
The most highly trained judges may differ concerning the evaluation of facts just as ordinary persons may
It is here that conflict of opinion is most frequently found
What is regarded as reasonable by one man whether judge or layman may be regarded as unreasonable by another
If therefore an appeal can be taken on the evaluation of facts then there is always a chance that the appellant may succeed even though the initial duty of showing that the judge below was in error may fall on him
2 Ridding ourselves of finer nuances and philosophic speculations and taking a realistic approach to a problem beset with human variables it is daily experience to see judges on the high bench differ and a fortiori so in the field of sentence
We project this reality in the context of full freedom for the first appellate decider of facts to reach his own finding on offence and sentence only to highlight how momentous it is to be or not to be for the appellant to have his case considered by 1110 the highest court when the Constitution and Parliament have conferred a full right of appeal
Summary dismissal save in glaring cases may spell grave jeopardy to life giving justice
That is why Order XXI Rule 151c while it survives to weed out worthless appeals shall remain sheathed in extra ordinary cases where facts on guilt or the wider range of considerations on sentence are involved
We must clarify that very right of appeal does not carry with it all the length of getting the record hearing both sides and giving full reasons for decisions
Then the institutions of justice will come to a grinding halt
Those who feel otherwise may read with profit et al Order 41 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code and the practice of so august a tribunal as the Supreme Court of the United States
Henry J Abraham writes Appeal
In the instance of a writ of appeal the aggrieved party has an absolute statutorily granted right to carry a case to the United States Supreme Court which in theory must review it
However the High Tribunal retains the very considerable loophole of being empowered to reject such an appeal on the grounds that the federal question otherwise validly raised is substantial
This highly significant discretionary element in the area of the Court s so called compulsory appellate jurisdiction caused it to dismiss 70 appeals in the 1955 56 term for example
Of these 40 were rejected for want of a substantial federal question the balance on other jurisdictional grounds
In the 59 60 term 63 of a total of 113 appeals were dismissed on the insubostalltiality ground  As a rule fully 50 to 60 per cent of the writs of appeal are thus dismissed or the judgment below affirmed without printing the record or oral argument 
In effect the appeel is hence used but sparingly to date in approximately 9 per cent of all cases or controversies presented to the Court
1 Nor are we charmed by some counsel sometimes asscrting the importance of Oral Arguments Unlimited forgetting that prolixity is counter productive and expensive and obstructive of case flow2 We 1111 never deny the brightening of obscure points and the cross pollination of creative views promoted by an active process of oral argument
The decision we make is confined to the criminal jurisdiction covered by article 134 and article 1451b and section 384 Criminal Procedure Code
The compelling thought which has pressured our judgment in a matter of life and death in a first appeal to a final court is best expressed by Edmund Cahn For what gives justice its special savor of nobility  Only the divine wrath that arises in us girds us and drives us to action whenever an instance of injustice affronts our sight
1 Having stressed the appellant s right at great length we still sustain rule 151c of Order XXI
This provision is general and covers all conceivable cases under article 1341
It enables not obligates
It operates in certain situations not in every appeal
It merely removes an apprehended disability of the court in summarily dismissing a glaring case where its compulsive continuance dragging the opposite party calling up prolix records and expanding on the reasons for the decision will stall the work of the court which is an institutional injury to social justice with no gain to anyone including the appellant to keep whom in agonising suspense for long is itself an injustice
What are those cases where a preliminary hearing is a worthwhile exercise  Without being exhaustive we may instance some
Where the only ground urged is a point of law which has been squarely covered by a ruling of this Court to keep the appeal lingering longer is survival after death
Where the accused has pleaded guilty of murder and the High Court on the evidence is satisfied with the pleas and has awarded the lesser penalty a mere appeal ex misericordin is an exercise in futility
Where a minor procedural irregularity clearly curable under the Code is all that the appellant has to urge the full panoply of an appellate bearing is an act of supererogation
Where the grounds taken at their face value are frivolous vexatious malicious wholly dilatory or blatantly mendacious the prolongation of an appeal is a premium on abuse of the process of court
Maybe other cases can be conceived of but we merely illustrate the functional relevance of Order XXI Rule 151c
Ordinarily save where nothing is served by fuller hearing notice must go
If every appeal under Art1341a and b or s2a 1112 of the Enlargement Act where questions of law or fact are raised is set down for preliminary hearing and summary disposal the meaningful difference between article 134 and article 136 may be judicially eroded and Parliament stultified
Maybe many of the appeals after fuller examination by this Court may fail
But the minimum processual price of deprivation of precious life or prolonged loss of liberty is a single comprehensive appeal
To be peeved by this need is to offend against the fair play of the Constitution
The horizon of human rights jurisprudence after Maneka Gandhi s case supra has many hues
The relevant provision of the Criminal Procedure Code have already been quoted
Counsel for the appellant had obvious difficulty in overcoming the obstacle of section 384
That section is sweeping
Any appellate court which includes the Supreme Court under article 134 may hear and dispose of an appeal summarily without the records and recording no reasons for dismissal if it is the High Court or the Supreme Court
Literally read it sounds arbitrary where death sentence at the first appeal is involved
Article 21 in its expansive incarnation may fatally knock down any summary power of fatally knocking down an appellant facing death penalty in first appeal by an unspeaking order
But the generality of the provision if read down may well be valid and rightly so
If the appeal is at the second or third tier there is no reason to grumble
If the punishment is not of the dreadful species there can be no constitutional consternation
After all to have a giant s strength is not wrong but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant  and judges do know this judicious caution
So we hold that the restrictions already indicated in applying Order XXI rule 151 c may legitimately be read into section 384 of the Code
Words of wide import and expressions of expansionist potential may always be canalised and constitutionalised a proposition too well established to be propped by precedents
The common embankments applicable to Order XXI Rule 151 c and section 384 of the Code to prevent unconstitutional overflow may now be concretised not as rigid manacles but as guidelines for safe exercise
We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will if found necessary make clarificatory rules in this behalf
To conclude we uphold the vires of Order XXI Rule 151c of the Supreme Court Rules and also section 384 of the Criminal Procedure Code but hold that in their application both the provisions shall be restricted by certain criteria as a permissible exercise in constitutionalisation
1113 Order XXI Rule 151c in action does not mean that all appeals falling within its fold shall be routinely disposed of as far as possible on a preliminary hearing
Such a course as earlier mentioned obliterates the difference between Articles 134 and 136 between right and leave
The rule in cases of appeals under article 134 1 a and b and section 2a is notice records and reasons but the exception is preliminary hearing on all such materials as may be placed by the appellant and brief grounds for dismissal
This exceptional category is where in all conscience there is no point at all
In cases of real doubt the benefit of doubt goes to the appellant and notice goes to the adversary even if the chances of allowance of the appeal be not bright
We think it proper to suggest that with a view to invest clarity and avoid ambiguity Order XXI Rule 151c may be suitably modified in conformity with this ruling
Before we part with this case it is right to register our view that too many appeals and revisions are a bane of the Indian Judicial System involving as it does sterile expense and delay and fruitless chase of perfection
The Evershed Committee a quarter of a century ago expressed dissatisfaction with the system of multiple appeals what with the social cost of litigative prolongation burden of precedents and heavy outlay a luxury which a Third World country can illafford
Too many appeals are counter productive as AP Herbert in Uncommon Law  has wittily driven home The people may be taught to believe in one court of appeal but where there are two they cannot be blamed if they believe in neither
When a man keeps two clocks which tell the time differently his fellows will receive with suspicion his weightiest pronouncements upon the hour of the day even if one of them happens to be right
 Way back in 1832 it has been pointed out that The only ground upon which a suitor ought to be allowed to bring the judgment of one court for examination before the members of another is the certainty or extreme probability of finding in the latter tribunal more wisdom and learning more maturity of deliberation and a greater capacity of sound decisions than existed in the court from which the appeal is to proceed
But as every appeal is of necessity attended with the two great and positive evils of expense and delay it is the bounden duty of every wise and good government to take all possible care that the court of appellate jurisdiction shall possess those advantages and that superior capacity for wise and impartial adjudication 1114 upon the presumption of possessing which the public support and the confidence of individual suitors is given to the institution 1 What is important is the choice of mature minds for dispensation of justice according to law and not wasteful multiplication of hierarchical tribunals
KAILASAM J
I had the benefit of perusing the judgment prepared by Krishna Iyer J
I regret I am unable to agree with it
This appeal is preferred by the 12 appellants under section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 read with section 1 of the against the judgment dated 31st March 1978 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal No 597 of 1976
The appellants were acquitted by the 1st Temporary Sessions Judge Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No 16 of 1969 of all the charges and on an appeal preferred by the State the order of acquittal was set aside by the High Court and the appellants found guilty and convicted under section 302 read with section 149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment
The appeal was listed for preliminary hearing under Rule 15 1 c of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules 1966
The appellants filed an application for adducing additional grounds in Crl
Petition No 1862 of 1978 wherein it was pleaded that the provision under clause c of sub rule 1 of Rule 15 of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules empowering the Court to dismiss the appeal summarily is ultra vires being inconsistent with the provisions of the 
It was submitted that the power of the Supreme Court to frame rules under article 145 of the Constitution canot be extended to annul the rights conferred under an Act of Parliament
It was further pleaded that an appeal under the  cannot be dismissed summarily without calling for the records ordering notice to the State and without giving reasons
When the Crl
Petition No 1862 of 1978 came up before this Court it was ordered The appellants have challenged the constitutional validity of cl
c of sub rule 1 of rule 15 of O XXI of the Supreme Court Rules which enables an appeal of the 1115 kind with which we are concerned to be placed for hearing ex parte before the Court for admission
In that view of the matter we think that unless the question of the constitutional validity of the rule is decided we cannot have a preliminary hearing of this appeal for admission
Let the records therefore be placed before the Hon ble the Chief Justice for giving such directions as he may deem fit and proper As the constitutional validity of cl
c of rule 151 of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules was challenged the matter was placed before the Full Bench by the Chief Justice
Rule 15 of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 runs as follows 15
1 The petition of appeal shall be registered and numbered as soon as it is lodged
Each of the following categories of appeals on being registered shall be put up for hearing ex parte before the Court which may either dismiss it summarily or direct issue of notice to all necessary parties or may make such orders as the circumstances of the case may require namely a an appeal from any judgment final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court summarily dismissing the appeal or the matter as the case may be before it b an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court under Article 132 1 andor 1341 c of the Constitution or under any other provision of law if the High Court has not recorded the reasons or the grounds for granting the certificate
c an appeal under sub clause a or sub clause b of clause 1 of Article 134 of the Constitution or under the 28 of 1970 or under section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 2 of 1974 d an appeal under section 476 B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 5 of 1898
e an appeal under clause b of sub section 1 of section 19 of the 70 of 1971
 1116 We are concerned with sub rule c in rule 151
The Supreme Court Rules were framed in exercise of the powers conferred under article 145 of the Constitution and all other powers enabling the Supreme Court to make rules
article 145 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament with the approval of the President to make rules from time to time for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court
Two sub articles are relevant and they are sub articles b and d
While sub article b empowers the Supreme Court to make rules as to the procedure for hearing appeals and other matters pertaining to appeals including the time within which appeals to the Court are to be entered Sub article d enables the Supreme Court to frame rules as to the entertainment of appeals under sub clause c of clause 1 of article 134
Article 134 confers appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters 134
1 An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court a has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or b has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death or c certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court
Provided that an appeal under sub clause c shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause 1 of article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or require
2 Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain an hear appeals from any judgment final order of sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law
 While an unrestricted right of appeal is provided to the Supreme Court under clauses a and b ie where on appeal an order of acquittal is reversed by the High Court and an accused person is sentenced to death or when the High Court has withdrawn for trial 1117 before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death an appeal under article 1341 c is subject to certain restrictions
An appeal under sub clause c is provided only when the case is certified by the High Court as a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court
Further an appeal under sub clause c shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause 1 of article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or require
The Supreme Court is empowered to prescribe rules regarding entertainment of appeals under article 1341 c by article 145 1 sub article d
So far as procedure for hearing appeals generally rules can be framed by the Supreme Court under sub article b of article 1451
The has conferred on the Supreme Court further power to entertain and hear appeals than conferred on it under Art 1341 a and b as provided for in Art 1342 of the Constitution
As article 1451 b enables the Supreme Court to frame rules as to procedure for hearing appeals the procedure thus prescribed will apply to appeals under the 
Rule 15 of Order XXI is framed under article 1451 sub article b
The rules can provide for the procedure for hearing appeals
Mr Mulla the learned counsel submitted that the rule making power of the Supreme Court is confined only to the rules as to entertainment of appeals under sub clause c of clause 1 of article 134 and would not enable the Supreme Court to frame rules regarding appeals under any other provision
The  confers right of appeal to the Supreme Court from any judgment final order of sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court a has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a period of not less than ten years b has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a period of not less than ten years
1118 The result is that in addition to the right of appeal under Article 134 1 a and b an appellant under the has also a right to appeal unrestricted by any of the provisions of Article 134 1 c or the rules framed by the Supreme Court under article 145 1 d
The submission of learned counsel fails to take note of Article 145 1 b which empowers the Supreme Court to frame rules as to the procedure for hearing appeals which would include hearing of appeals under article 134 1 a and b of the Constitution as well as appeals under the 
The rules therefore are properly made under article 145 1 b and would be valid so far as to the procedure for hearing appeals
The submission of the learned counsel is that when a right of appeal is conferred on a person the appeal can only be disposed of by the Supreme Court after full hearing ie after calling for the records issuing notice to the other side and hearing both the parties and giving reasons for its conclusion
It was submitted that a summary dismissal affects the substantive right of appeal and is not confined to procedure and is contrary to the provisions of the law made by Parliament and as such beyond the rule making powers conferred under article 145 1 b
As the  conferred a right of appeal any provision under the Supreme Court Rules restricting such appeal is submitted to be outside the scope of the rule making powers of the Supreme Court
The confers a right of appeal but the procedure as to the hearing of appeal is not prescribed under the 
Before referring to the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules relating to the procedure as to hearing of appeals it is useful to refer to the provisions of the law made by Parliament regulating the hearing of the appeal by all courts including the Supreme Court
Chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974 deals with appeals
Section 374 1 provides that any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court
This section confers a right of appeal against all convictions whatever the sentence may be on a trial held by the High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction and is thus wider than the right of appeal conferred under article 1341 a and b or under the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal 1119 Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1970
Section 375 provides that there will be no appeal where an accused person has pleaded guilty and convicted on such plea by the High Court
This section thus excludes the appeal obviously to the Supreme Court against the conviction on a trial held by the High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction if the accused has pleaded gulity
Section 376 excludes appeals in petty cases where the High Court passes only a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding one thousand rupees
Thus though section 374 confers a right of appeal on any person convicted on a trial held by the High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction to the Supreme Court this right is restricted under sections 375 and 376 in that a person who pleads guilty and has been convicted on such plea by the High Court is barred from preferring an appeal to the Supreme Court
So also an appeal against a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or of fine not exceeding one thousand rupees or of both is taken away under section 376
Section 379 confers a right of appeal to the Supreme Court where the High Court has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and convicted him and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a term of ten years or more
Section 379 gives effect to the provision of article 134 1 a and b of the Constitution and section 2 of the 
The result of the passing of the and section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code is that they provide an appeal to the Supreme Court in addition to the right of appeal conferred under Article 134 1 a and b of the Constitution
The contention of Mr Mulla the learned counsel for the appellant is that rule 15 1 c of Order XXI not merely relates to the procedure but also deprives the substantive right of appeal conferred on the accused under article 134 1 a and b and the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act1970 and under section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
By the impugned rule the appeal on being registered is put up for hearing ex parte before the court and the court is empowered either to dismiss it summarily or direct issue of notice to all necessary parties or make such orders as the circumstances may require
Section 384 of the Code of Crl
Procedure 1973 confers a right on the appellate court to dismiss the appeal summarily when it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering
The proviso to the section requires that no appeal presented under section 382 by the appellant or his pleader 1120 shall be dismissed unless the appellant or his pleader has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of his case
An appeal from the appellant from jail cannot be dismissed except after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same unless the Appellate Court considers that the appeal is frivolous or that the production of the accused in custody before the Court would involve such inconvenience as would be disproportionate in the circumstances of the case
Section 384 2 provides that before dismissing an appeal under this section the Court may call for the record of the case
Under sub section 3 where the Appellate Court dismissing an appeal under sec
384 is a Court of Sessions or of the Chief Judicial Magistrate it shall record its reasons for doing so
385 prescribes the procedure for hearing appeals not dismissed summarily
While sec
374 confers a right of appeal sec
375 and sec
376 restricts such a right
Section 384 prescribes the procedure for hearing appeals enabling the Court to dismiss certain appeals summarily and to deal with others under sec
385 if they are not summarily dismissed
The right of appeal conferred can be curtailed by procedure as envisaged in sec
384 Crl
Procedure Code or rule 15 Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules
We are unable to accept the contention that a right of appeal would mean that before an appeal is disposed of the records should be called for notice ordered to the other side the other side heard and reasons given for the disposal of the appeal
The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which have been referred to show that all appeal to the Supreme Court under section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code is restricted by the provisions of sec
375 and sec
376 and could be dealt with summarily under sec
384 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Mr Mulla the learned counsel submitted that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code are not applicable to the Supreme Court
But this plea does not bear scrutiny in view of the specific provisions making the procedure applicable to the Supreme Court
An appeal to the Supreme Court is subject to the several provisions of the Crl
Procedure Code including the provisions relating to summary disposal of the appeals
The plea of the learned counsel that the provisions of the impugned rule are contrary to any law made by Parliament is not maintainable
The impugned rule 15 1 c Order XXI more or less incorporates the provisions found in the Crl
Procedure Code
The contention of the learned counsel that the right conferred on him under article 134 1 a and b of the Constitution and under the  is curtailed is therefore without substance
1121 In the result we find that the contention of the learned counsel namely that the impugned rule is beyond the rule making power of the Supreme Court under article 145 of the Constitution cannot be accepted as article 1451 b specifically enables the Supreme Court to frame rules as to the procedure for hearing appeals
The contention that the Rule is opposed to the provisions of laws made by Parliament and is thus beyond the scope of rule making powers under article 145 cannot also be upheld for the reasons stated
Neither in the Memorandum of Grounds nor in his arguments the learned counsel contended that a summary dismissal of an appeal under the provisions of the Crl
Procedure Code would offend the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution
In the course of arguments it was submitted that if the impugned rule is construed as empowering the Court to dismiss an appeal summarily it would offend article 21 of the Constitution
When the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code enabling the Court to dismiss an appeal summarily is not challenged the impugned rule is equally unassailable
We will now consider whether the impugned rule would in any way offend Article 21 of the Constitution
Article 21 of the Constitution reads as follows No person shall be deprived of his right or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law
 The words Procedure established by law  have been construed by various decisions of this Court
In A K Gopalan s case 1950 SCR page 88 it has been held by a majority that the word law  in Article 21 had been used in the sense of State made  law and not in the sense of law embodying the principles of natural justice
Procedure established by law means a law made by Union Parliament or Legislature or State
 According to Patanjali Sastri J law in Article 21 did not mean jus naturale but means positive or state made law
Procedure established by law according to the learned Judge did not however mean any procedure which may be prescribed by a competent legislature but the ordinary well established criminal procedure that is those settled usages and normal modes of procedure sanctioned by the Criminal Procedure Code which are the general law of criminal procedure in our country
If this test is applied the procedure that is challeged being the procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be assailed
Later decisions have pointed out that even though the procedure is prescribed by a competent legislature it may fail to satisfy the requirements of the article if the proce 1122 dure prescribed is no procedure at all
We cannot accept the plea that the procedure prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code is no procedure at all
The main objection to the invoking of Article 21 for challenging the validity of the impugned rule is that a person convicted of an offence has no right of appeal unless such a right is conferred by the statute
If the statute does not confer a right of appeal the person has no remedy
If P K Mittra vs State of West Bengal
1 this Court held that a right of appeal is a statutory right which has got to be recognised by the Courts and the right of appeal where one exists cannot be denied in exercise of the discretionary power even of the High Court
An appeal is a creature of the statute and the powers and the jurisdiction of the appellate court must be circumscribed by the words of the statute vide Shankar Kerba Yadhav vs State of Maharashtra2 A right of appeal must be given by statute or by some authority equivalent to a statute or rules framed under a statute vide Minakshi vs Subramanya3 The powers and the jurisdiction of the appellate Court as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code and the rule cannot be said to deny a right of hearing to the appellant
The plea that audialteram partem has been violated has also no substance
The right to be heard in an appeal is regulated by statute
In the appeal with which we are concerned the accused persons had the benefit of a full trial before a Sessions Court at the first instance or before the High Court After a full trial the judgment is rendered by a High Judicial Officer such as a Session Judge or a High Court Judge
The appellate court has before it the judgment of the lower court and the petition for appeal
At the preliminary hearing the appellant or his pleader is heard before the court decides to dismiss the appeal summarily
The impugned rule prescribes the procedure for hearing of the appeals
The Criminal Procedure Code provides that there shall be no right of appeal in cases where the accused is convicted by the High Court on a plea of guilty or when the High Court passed a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months
The appellate court is empowered to dismiss the appeal summarily when there are no sufficient grounds for interfering
The power to summarily dismiss an appeal is conferred under the Criminal Procedure Code when the court is satisfied that there are no sufficient grounds for interfering with the judgment appealed against
This decision is taken by the appellate court being the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court 1123 of Session the High Court or the Supreme Court
In the case of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Court of Session reasons should be recorded for summary dismissal
The High Court and the Supreme Court need not record reasons for summarily dismissing the appeal
It is necessary that the Supreme Court or the High Court should be satisfied that there are no sufficient grounds for interfering
The conclusion that there are no sufficient grounds for interfering is arrived by the High Court or the Supreme Court after hearing the appellant examining the judgment and the petition for appeal
There can be no doubt that the appellate court is discharging an onerous duty in dismissing a case summarily
It may be noted that the Code provides for calling for the records before dismissing an appeal
In cases where the appellant is sentenced to death imprisonment for life or long term of imprisonment it is the bounden duty of the appellate court to hear the appellant examine the petition of appeal and copy of the judgment appealed against
If it feels necessary to call for the records of the case it is its duty to call for the records and examine them before coming to the conclusion that there are no sufficient grounds for interfering
It is the responsibility of the appellate authority to order notice and hear the other side if it is not satisfied that there are no sufficient grounds for interfering
Equally it is the duty of the appellate court to dismiss the appeal summarily if it satisfied that there are no sufficient grounds for interefering
This duty is imposed for regulating the work of the courts for otherwise judicial time would be unnecessarily spent
Taking into account the fact that the duty to decide the question where there are not sufficient grounds for interfering is placed on highly placed judicial officers after affording a due hearing it cannot be stated that the very right of appeal has been taken away
It is not possible to accept the contention that the procedure prescribed is not in accordance with the law as the Criminal Procedure Code and the impugned rules are laws properly made
It cannot also be said that the law is violative of the right conferred under Article 21
The decision of the Supreme Court rendered under sec
421 of the Crl
Procedure Code of 1898 which is similar to section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 may be referred to
In Govinda Kadam vs State of Maharashtra1 the Supreme Court held that the appellate Court has full power under section 421 of the Crl
Procedure Code to dismiss an appeal in limine even without sending for the records if on perusal of the impugned order and 1124 the petition of appeal it is satisfied with the correctness of the order appealed against
It may be emphasised that the power of summary dismissal has to be exercised after perusing the petition of appeal and the copy of the order appealed against and after affording the appellant and his pleader a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the appeal
The order summarily dismissing an appeal by the High Court by the word rejected  is not violative of any statutory provision
While holding that a summary rejection of the appeal by the High Court is not violative of any statutory provision this Court pointed out that it is desirable that reasons are recorded by the High Court when prima facie arguable issues have been raised as that would enable the Supreme Court to appreciate the reasons for rejection of the appeal by the High Court
These observations are not applicable to the Supreme Court because the order of this Court is final
Rule 15 1 of the Supreme Court Rules enables the Supreme Court after putting up the appeal for hearing ex parte to dismiss it summarily or direct issue of notice to all necessary parties or may make such orders as the circumstances of the case may require
Rule 13 prescribes that a memorandum of appeal shall be in the form of a petition stating succinctly and briefly as far as possible in chronological order the principal steps in the proceedings from its commencement till its conclusion in the High Court
Sub rule 2 of rule 13 prescribes that the petition of appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from and in the case of an appeal on a certificate also of the certificate granted by the High Court and of the order granting the said certificate
Rule 14 prescribes that when the appellant is in jail he may present his petition of appeal and the documents mentioned in rule 13 including any written argument which he may desire to advance to the Officer in charge of the jail who shall forthwith forward the same to the Registrar of this Court
The petition of appeal thus received under rule 13 and 14 is put up for hearing ex parte before the Court which is empowered either to dismiss it summarily or to direct issue notice to the necessary parties
Thus it is to be seen that the procedure contemplated in rules 13 14 and 15 is almost similar to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure referred to above
In an appeal sent by the appellant from jail he is entitled to and any written arguments which he may desire to advance in support of his appeal
The Court in proper cases in which it considers it desirable would engage an advocate to present the case of the appellant in jail
The mere fact that the appellant in jail is not being heard in person or through an advocate would not mean that the appeal of the appellant in jail is not being heard
The Court peruses the judgment petition of appeal 1125 and the written arguments if any before proceeding to take action under rule 15
This Court being the highest Court is not required to give reasons but is expected to bestow the greatest care in exercising the power of summary dismissal under Rule 15
On a consideration of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the impugned rules we are unable to accept any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel
In passing a reference was made by the learned counsel to the decision of this Court reported in 1978 2 SCR 621 Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India in support of his contention that the rights conferred under article 21 are also available to the appellants before the Supreme Court
We are unable to accept the contention for the case referred to is one wherein an opportunity was not provided to a person before the passport was impounded
It has no application to an appeal as in the present case the appellant is properly heard in a trial and is also heard by the appellate court
We feel that Maneka Gandhi s case has no application to the facts of the present case
In the result we reject all the contentions put forward by the learned counsel and hold that the impugned Rule is within the rule making power of the Supreme Court and answer the reference accordingly
ORDER In the light of the majority judgment we uphold the vires of Order XXI Rule 151c of the Supreme Court Rules and also section 384 of the Criminal Procedure Code but hold that in their application both the provisions shall be governed by the criteria laid down in the majority Judgment
In the appeal above mentioned we direct notice to the respondent


Summary:
Rule 151c of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 envisages that the petition of appeal under sub clause a or sub clause b of clause 1 of article 134 of the Constitution or under the or under section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 on being Registered shall be put up for hearing ex parte before the court which may either dismiss it summarily or direct issue of notice to all necessary parties or make such orders as the circumstances of the case may require
The appellants in the appeal who were acquitted by the Sessions Court had been convicted and sentenced by the High Court and awarded life imprisonment under section 302 read with section 149 IPC
When their appeal under the was listed for preliminary hearing under Rule 151c of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 it was contended 1 that the said provision empowering the court to dismiss the appeal summarily was ultra vires the Enlargement Act 1970 2 the power of the Supreme Court to frame rules under article 145 of the Constitution can not be extended to annul the rights conferred under an Act of Parliament and 3 that an appeal under the Enlargement Act 1970 cannot be dismissed summarily without calling for the records ordering notice to the State and without giving reasons
 HELD Per Krishna Iyer Shinghal  Desai JJ 1
Article 1341c spells a measure of seriousness because the High Court which has heard the case certifies that it involves questions of such moment that the Supreme Court itself must resolve them
To dispose of such a matter by a preliminary healing is to cast a reflection on the High Court s capacity to understand the seriousness of a certification
1095 D E 2
Article 136 vests a plenary discretion in the Supreme Court to deign or decline to grant leave to appeal against any conviction or sentence
Before deciding to grant or reject such Leave the court accords an oral hearing after 1086 perusing all the papers produced
Once leave is granted the appeal is heard after notice to the state in full panoply
After leave the appeal is born
Then it ripens into fullness and is disposed of when both sides are present
No appeal after leave is dismissed summarily or ex parte
If article 136 gives a discretionary power to grant leave to appeal or to dismiss in limine after an ex parte hearing or after issue of notice if the court so chooses article 134 which gives a constitutional right to appeal as it were must stand on a higher footing lest the Constitution makers be held to have essayed in supererogation
1095G 1096A 3
There is much more hearing  content in an absolute appellate right than in a precarious special leave  motion
Jurisprudentially a right is large than a permission
Art 134 puts the momentous class of cases covered by it beyond the discretionary compass of article 136 and within the compulsory area of full hearing such as would follow upon leave being granted under article 1361
A full hearing may not obligate dragging the opposite side to court involving expense and delay
Fullness of hearing of the proponent is not incompatible with non hearing of the opponent when after appreciating all that could be urged in support of the cause there is no need felt to call upon the other side as where the proposition is groundless frivolous or not prima facie statable
1096B D 4
Article 1342 empowers Parliament to expand the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain criminal appeals
In exercise of this power Parliament enacted the in its grave concern for long incarceration being subject to great scrutiny at the highest level if first inflicted by the High Court
A right of appeal to the Supreme Court was granted when the High Court has for the first time sentenced an accused to life imprisonment or to a term of or above ten years of rigorous imprisonment and equated it with that granted under article 1341a and b
1097G 1098D 5
The nature of the appeal process cannot be cast in a rigid mould as it varies with jurisdiction and systems of jurisprudence
Whatever the protean forms the appellate process may take the goal is justice so that a disgruntled litigant cannot convert his right of appeal into breaking down the court system by sufferance of interminable submission after several tribunals have screened his case and found it fruitless
The signification of the right of appeal under article 134 is a part of the procedure established by law for the protection of life and personal liberty
Nothing which will render this right illusory or its fortune chancy can square with the mandate of article 21
 1100H 1101A 1102F 1103D 1104H 1105A 6
When the High Court trying a case sentences a man to death a higher court must examine the merits to satisfy that human life shall not be haltered without an appellate review
A single right of appeal is more or less a universal requirement of the guarantee of life and liberty rooted in the conception that men are fallible that Judges are men and that making assurance doubly sure before irrevocable deprivation of life or liberty comes to pass full scale re examination of the facts and the law is made an integral part of fundamental fairness or procedure
1105C E 7
The life of the law is not perfection of theory but realisation of justice in the concrete situation of a given system
It is common knowledge that 1087 a jail appeal or an appeal filed through an advocate does not contain an exhaustive accompaniment of all the evidentiary material or record of proceedings laying bare legal errors in the judicial steps
It is not unusual that a fatal flaw has been discovered by the appellate judges leading to a total acquittal
Such a high jurisdiction as is vested by article 134 calls for an active examination by the judges and such a process will be an ineffectual essay in the absence of the whole record
A preliminary hearing is hardly of any use bearing in mind that what is being dealt with is an affirmation of death sentence for the first time
Section 366 of the Code requires the Court of Session which passes a sentence of death to submit the proceedings to the High Court and rulings insist on an independent appellate consideration of the matter and an examination of all relevant material evidence
The Supreme Court s position is analogous and independent examination of materials is impossible without the entire records being available
So it is reasonable that before hearing the appeal under Rule 151  c of Order XXI ordinarily the records are sent for and are available
Counsel s assistance apart the court it self must apply its mind the stakes being grave enough
1105F 1106B 8
The recording of reasons is usually regarded as a necessary requirement of fair decision
The obligation to give reasons for decision when consequence of wrong Judgment is forfeiture of life or personal liberty for long periods needs no emphasis especially when it is a first appeal following upon a heavy sentence imposed for the first time
The constraint to record reasons secures in black and white what the Judge has in mind and gives satisfaction to him who is condemned that what he has had to say has not only been heard  but considered and recorded
article 21 is a binding mandate against blind justice
In the narrow categories of cases covered by article 1341a and b and section 2a of the Enlargement Act the subject matter is of sufficient gravity as to justify the recording of reasons in the ultimate order
1160F G 1106H 1107A 9
Protection at the third deck by calling for the records or launching on long ratiocination is a waste of judicial time
Our Rules of Criminal Procedure provide for dismissal at the third level without assigning written reasons not because there are no reasons but because the tardy need to document them hampers the hearing of the many cases in the queue that press upon the time of the court at that level
1107F 10
Order XXI Rule 151c of the Rules in an enabling provision not a compulsive one
Harmonious construction of article 134 and article 145 leads to the conclusion that the contemplated rules are mere machinery provisions
The sequence is simple
The formalities for entertaining certain types of appeal ale covered by article 1451d the manner of hearing and disposal is governed by article 1451b and the substantive sweep of the appeal as a method of redressal is found in article 134
1107G H 1108D 1109A
It is daily experience to see judges on the high bench differ and a fortiori so in the field of sentence This reality is projected in the context of full freedom for the first appellate decider of facts to reach his own finding on offence and sentence only to highlight how momentous it is for the appellant to have his case considered by the highest court when the Constitution and Parliament have conferred a full right of appeal Summary dismissal save in glaring cases may spell grave jeopardy to life giving justice 1088 That is why Order XXI Rule 151c while it survives to weed out worthless appeals shall remain sheathed in extra ordinary cases where facts on guilt or the wider range of considerations on sentence are involved
1109G 1110B 12
Rule 151c of Order XXI is general and covers all conceivable cases under article 1341
It operates in certain situations not in every appeal
It merely removes an apprehended disability of the court in summarily dismissing a glaring case where its compulsive continuance dragging the opposite party calling up prolix records and expanding on the reasons for the decision will stall the work of the court which is an institutional injury to social justice with no gain to anyone including the appellant to keep whom in agonising suspense for long is itself an injustice
1111C D 13
If every appeal under article 1341 a and b or section 2a of the enlargement Act where questions of law or fact are raised is set down for preliminary hearing and summary disposal the meaningful difference between article 134 and article 136 may be judicially eroded and Parliament stultified
The minimum processual price of deprivation of precious life or prolonged loss of liberty is a single comprehensive appeal
To be peevel by this need is to offend against the fair play of the constitution
1111H 1112B 14
Upholding the vires of Order XXI Rule 151c of the Supreme Court Rules and also section 384 of the Criminal Procedure Code the majority however held that in their application both the provisions shall be restricted by the criteria set out hereunder ns a permissible exercise in constitutionalisation of the provisions
1112H 15
Order XXI Rules 151c in action does not mean that all appeals falling within its fold shall be routinely disposed of
Such a course obliterates the difference between Articles 134 and 136 between right and leave
The rule in cases of appeals under article 1341a and b and section 2a is notice records and reasons but the exception is preliminary hearing on all such materials as may be placed by the appellant and brief grounds for dismissal
This exceptional category is where in all conscience there is no point at all
In cases of real doubt the benefit of doubt goes to the appellant and notice goes to the adversary even if the chances of allowance of the appeal be not bright
113A C With a view to invest clarity and avoid ambiguity Order XXI Rule 151c may be suitably modified Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India 1978 1 SCC 248 Presidential Ref
No 1 of 1978  Wiseman vs Barneman  Russel vs Duke of Norfolk 11949 1 All
ER 109 Ponnamma vs Arumogam 1905 AC at p 390 Colonial Sugar Refining Co vs Irving  Newman vs Klausner  referred to
Black s Law Dictionary 4th Edn
p 1368 Stroud s Judicial Dictionary 3rd Edn
Vol 1 pp
11 p 194 Law Quarterly Review Vol
71 1955 p 410 11
The Judicial Process by Henry J Abraham 1962 pp 159 160 referred to
1089 Per Kailasam  Koshal JJ
dissenting 1
Article 145 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament with the approval of the President to make rules from time to time for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the court
1116B 2
Article 134 confers appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters and while an unrestricted right of appeal is provided to the Supreme Court under clauses a and b an appeal under such clause c is provided only when the case is certified by the High Court as a fit one for appeal
Further an appeal under sub clause c shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause 1 of article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or require 1116D 1117B 3
The Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction 
Act 1970 has conferred on the Supreme Court further power to entertain and hear appeals than conferred on it under article 1341a and b as provided for in article 1342 of the Constitution
1117C 4
Article 1451b enables the Supreme Court to frame rules as to procedure for hearing appeals
Rule 15 of under XXI provides for the procedure for hearing appeals and is valid so far as to the procedure of hearing appeals
1117D E 1118C 5
While section 374 confers a right of appeal section 375 and section 376 restrict such a right
Section 384 prescribes the procedure for hearing appeals enabling the court to dismiss certain appeals summarily and to deal with others under section 385 if they are not summarily dismissed
The right of appeal conferred can be curtailed by procedure as envisaged in section 384 Cr
PC Or Rule 15 order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules
1120D 6
An appeal to the Supreme Court under section 374 Cr
PC is restricted by the provisions of section 375 and section 376 and could be dealt with summarily under section 384 Cr
PC An appeal to the Supreme Court is subject to the several provisions of the Cr
PC including the provisions relating to summary disposal of the appeals
1120E F G 7
The powers and the jurisdiction of the appellate court as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code and the rule cannot be said to deny a right of hearing to the appellant
The right to be heard in an appeal is regulated be statute
After a full trial the judgment is rendered by a High Judicial Officer such as a Sessions Judge or a High Court Judge
The appellate court has before it the Judgment of the lower court and the petition for appeal
At the preliminary hearing the appellant or his pleader is heard before the court decides to dismiss the appeal summarily
The power to summarily dismiss an appeal is conferred under the Criminal Procedure Code when the court is satisfied that there are no sufficient grounds for interfering with the judgment appealed against
This decision is taken by the appellate court being the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court of Sessions the High Court or the Supreme Court
In the case of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Court of Sessions reasons should be recorded for summarily dismissal
The High Court and the Supreme Court need not record reasons for summarily dismissing the appeal
It is necessary that the Supreme Court or the High Court should be satisfied that there are not sufficient ground for interfering
The conclusion is arrived at after hear 1090 ing the appellant examining the judgment and the petition for appeal
The appellate court is discharging an onerous duty in dismissing a case summarily
The Code provides for calling for the records before dismissing an appeal
In cases where an appellant is sentenced to death imprisonment for life or long term of imprisonment it is the bounden duty of the appellate court to hear the appellant examine the petition of appeal and copy of the judgment appealed against
If it feels necessary to call for the records of the case it is duty to call for the records and examine them before coming to the conclusion that there are not sufficient grounds for interfering
It is the responsibility of the appellate authority to order notice and hear the other side if it is not satisfied that there be no sufficient grounds for interfering
Equally it is the duty of the appellate court to dismiss the appeal summarily if it ie satisfied that there are no sufficient grounds for interfering is duty is imposed for regulating the work of the courts for otherwise judicial time would be unnecessarily spent
Taking into account the fact that the duty to decide the question where there are no sufficient grounds for interfering is placed on highly placed judicial officers after affording a due hearing it cannot be stated that the very right of appeal bas been taken away
1122E F 1122H 1123F 8
The procedure contemplated in Rules 13 14 and 15 of the Supreme Court Rules are almost similar to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to appeal
In an appeal sent by the appellant from jail he is entitled to send any written arguments which he may desire to advance in support of his appeal
The Court in proper cases in which it considers it desirable would engage an advocate to present the case of the appellant in jail
The mere fact that the appellant in jail is not being heard in person or through an advocate would not mean that the appeal is not being heard
The court peruses the judgment petition of appeal and the written arguments if any before proceeding to take action under Rule 15
This Court being the highest court is not required to give reasons but is expected to bestow the greatest care in exercising the power of summary dismissal under Rule 15
1124G 1125A PK Mittra vs State of West Bengal 1959 SUPPL
I SCR 63 Shankar Kerba Yadhav vs State of Maharashtra   Minakshi vs Subramanya 14 IA 168 Govinda Kadtuji Kadam vs State of Maharashtra   referred to
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India 1978 2 SCR 621 distinguished