iminal Appeal No 3 of 1970
63 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 24 1969 of them Calcutta High Court in Cr
Appeal No 378 of 1969
I N Shroff for the appellant
P K Chatterjee and G section Chatterjee for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUA J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of summary dismissal of the appellant s appeal by the High Court of Calcutta from the judgment and order of a learned Additional Sessions Judge Asansol dated June 18 1969 convicting the appellant for offences under sections 25 1 a and 27 of the 
According to the prosecution case on receipt of secret information Inspector Kali Prasanna Chaudhury of Detective Department along with Circle Inspector section L Routh SI K D Chakravarty Officer incharge of Hirapur police station and SI K D Chatterjee Town Sub Inspector of Asansol and some constables searched the appellant s house on May 14 1968 between 640 am and 9 am in the presence of some other witnesses
In the Central Room of the house there was an almirah of which the key was produced by the appellant and handed over to Inspector Kaliprasanna Chaudhury PW 1
The almirah was opened with the said key wherein was found a bag containing seven12 bore live cartridges seven 410 bore live cartridges nine rifle ammunition and one 12 bore fired cartridge case
There was also found a gun folded into two parts under a bundle of clothes on the lowest shelf
The appellant could not produce any licence or permit for the possession of the gun and the cartridges
As a result of this recovery the appellant was arrested and challenged
He was duly com mitted by a magistrate to the court of Sessions
The principal question which fell for decision at his trial was whether it could be said that he was in possession of the articles found from the almirah as contemplated by section 25 of the 
After discussing the evidence and the legal position on the question of presumption of conscious pos session in circumstances like the present the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that these articles were in the appellant s conscious possession
No licence or permit for these articles having been produced the appellant was convicted both under section 251 a and under section 27 of the 
Under section 27 of the no separate sentence was considered necessary but under section 25 1 a he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years
It may incidentally be mentioned that in the trial court on behalf of the appellant the legality of the investigation into the offence in question was also assailed it being further contended that the SI K D Chakravarty Officer in charge of Hirapur police station was not empowered to investigate the case
As these questions are not agitated in this Court we need say nothing on those points
Against his conviction the appellant appealed to the High Court under section 410 Cr PC but this appeal was dismissed summarily on June 24 1969 without indicating any reasons in support of the order of summary dismissal
64 Before us on behalf of the appellant it was contended that the order of summary dismissal by the High Court is contrary to the consistent view taken by this Court in numerous decisions where it has been firmly laid down that if an appeal raises arguable points of fact or law then it is undesirable and improper to dismiss it summarily without indicating at least broadly the reasons for such dismissal
In this case according to the submission the question of the conscious possession of the articles on the facts and circumstances of this case
was of considerable importance and it required scrutiny of the evidence on the record
The appeal also raised some other questions relating to the alleged infirmities in the search conducted during the investigation
Indeed according to the appellant s counsel there were nearly ten grounds of appeal in the memorandum which suggest that the question of the conscious possession of these articles clearly required a closer scrutiny of the evidence in the case
In our view there is force in the appellant s contention
Beginning with the decision in Mushtak Hussein vs The State of Bombay1 this Court has in numerous cases emphasised the extreme desirability of indicating however broadly the reasons which prevail with the High Court in dismissing summarily an appeal in which questions of act or law are raised which do not seem to be unarguable or insubstantial
This however does not mean that the statute does not empower the High Court to dismiss an appeal in limine where in its opinion there is no substance in the appeal
The latest decision of this Court was given on March 13 1973 in Mustaq Ahmed Mohamed Hussain and Mukhtar Hussain Ali Hussain vs The State of Gujarat2 in which some of the previous decisions of this Court on this point have been digested
In arguable cases not only would the reasons recorded by the High Court be helpful to this Court in better understanding and appreciating the High Court s line of approach but it would also serve to assure the accused that the arguable points in his appeal were properly argued and duly considered by the High Court
This assurance cannot be considered to be without importance and value
The question however arises whether it is desirable and necessary in the larger interest of justice to send the present case back to the High Court for re decision or it would be more conducive to the cause of justice that we ourselves examine the evidence and dispose of the appeal finally without further prolonging the proceedings against the appellant
It may be pointed out that the recovery of the articles in question was effected as far back as May 1968 and the appellant s conviction by the trial court is dated June 16 1969
The High Court dismissed his appeal on June 24 1969 land this Court granted special leave on January 8 1970 when the appellant was released on bail
More than 3 years have now elapsed since the grant of special leave and the appellant s release on bail
We consider it would be highly unfair and unjust to the appellant to prolong the uncertainty of the final fate of this case by sending it back to the High Court for final disposal of the appeal after rehearing
We have
therefore undertaken to examine the evidence ourselves because that would guarantee speedy disposal of the case against the appellant
We may in this con 1 2 Crl
A No 9 of 1973 decided on 13 3 73
65 nection point out that undue delay in the final disposal of criminal cases tends to some extent to defeat the very purpose of criminal justice
Speedy disposal of criminal cases for commission of offences promotes confidence of the society in the administration of criminal justice which is essential for sustaining the faith of the law abiding members of the society in the effectiveness of the rule of law
It also saves the accused from avoidable harassment inherent in unreasonably prolonged trials and appeals
After having been taken through the evidence we find that the testimony of K P Choudhary PW1 that the appellant had produced the key of the almirah in question and handed it over to the witness who opened the almirah with that key is trust worthy and no infirmity is found in his evidence
The evidence of Dharmadas Thakur PW2 fully supports the evidence of PW1 on this point
So does the evidence of Santosh Lal Routh PW4
No doubt PW1 and PW4 are police officers but PW2 is an employee of Indian Iron  Steel Company Ltd The appellant worked in the department of PW 2
Now once it is held that the appellant had produced the key of the almirah the presumption arises that the arms found in that almirah were in his possession
No doubt there were certain articles belonging to women but that is immaterial
It is not the appellant s case that this key used to be taken by the other members of his family who used to place their articles in this almirah without the appellant s knowledge and that anyone of them might therefore have Placed the arms in question in that almirah without his knowledge
In fact the appellant has on the other hand completely denied the recovery of these articles from the almirah
His plea is not wholly irrelevant and can certainly be taken
into consideration
On the evidence on the record therefore it is not possible to hold that the existence of the arms in the almirah were without the appellant s knowledge or that his possession of the arms was unconscious
Ms conviction under section 251 a of the Arms Act 1969 is therefore
fully justified
It is however difficult to sustain his conviction under section 27 of the Arms Act
There is no evidence to support the offence under that section and indeed the trial court has convicted him without properly applying its mind to the ingredients of that offence
judgment of the trial court seems to suggest that mere possession of the arms would also constitute an offence under section 27 of the Arms Act
This view is clearly not correct
But since no separate sentence was imposed under section 27 it is unnecessary to say anything more about it than that the conviction under section 27 must be quashed
The question however arises as to what sentence in the circumstances of the case would meet the ends of justice
As already observed the offence was committed in May 1968 and the appellant was convicted in June 1969
We are now in April 1973
The possession of the arms in question has not been shown to be inspired by any sinister purpose
There is no evidence of any undesirable antecedents of the appellant nor is there any suggestion that the arms were likely to be used for some antisocial purpose
Their possession by the appellant might well have been intended to be utilized for the purpose 944 Sup
CI73 66 of self defence though undoubtedly the possession was without a proper licence
Considering all the relevant circumstances of the case we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone and a sentence of fine of Ps 5001  is in addition imposed on the appellant and in default of payment of fine the appellant is directed to serve a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month
We order accordingly
The appeal succeeds in part to the extent just stated
VPS Appeal partly allowed


Summary:
On receipt of information the police searched the appellants house on May 14 1968
In the central room of that house there was an almirah of which the key was produced by the appellant and handed over to the Inspector of Police
When the almirah was opened with the key it was found to contain a bag with live cartridges and a gun
As no licence or permit for their possession was produced the appellant was prosecuted and was convicted under Ss 251a and 27 of the and the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years RI
His appeal to the High Court was dismissed summarily
Special leave to appeal to this Court was granted and the accused was on bail pending disposal of the appeal
HELD 1 The High Court has the power to dismiss an appeal in limine where in its opinion there is no substance in the appeal
But in cases where questions of fact or law which are arguable and which are not unsubstantial are raised it is desirable that the High Court while dismissing summarily should indicate broadly the reasons which prevailed with it
In such cases not only the reasons recorded by the High Court would be helpful to this Court in better understanding and appreciating the High Court s line of approach but it would also serve to assure the accused that the arguable points in his appeal have been properly argued and duly considered by the High Court
64D F Mushtak Hussain vs Bombay  and Mushtaq Ahmed Hussain and Mukhtar Hussain Ali Hussain vs The State of Guj Cr
A No 9 of 1973 decided on 13 3 73 followed
2 However it is undesirable and unnecessary in the larger interests of justice to send the present case back to the High Court for re decision
The appellant was convicted in June 1969 and the High Court s decision was shortly there after
Undue delay in final disposal of criminal appeals tends to some extent to defeat the very purpose of criminal justice
Speedy disposal of criminal cases for commission of offences promotes confidence of the society in the administration of criminal justice which is essential for sustaining the faith of the law abiding members of the society in the effectiveness of the rule of law
It also saves the accused from avoidable harassment inherent in unreasonably prolonged trials and appeals
64F H 65A B 3 On the evidence on the record it is not possible to hold that the existence of the arms in the almirah was without the appellant s knowledge and that his possession of the arms was unconscious
Therefore his conviction under section 251 a was justified
65E F 4 There is no evidence in support of the conviction for the offence under section 27 and therefore his conviction under that section cannot be sustained
65F G 5 There is no evidence of any undesirable antecedents of the appellant and the possession of the arms has not been shown to be inspired by any sinister purpose
Since more than 4 years had elapsed since the date of the offence it would be in the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to that already undergone and a sentence of fine is imposed in addition
65H 66A D