i/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM GANGTOK Criminal Revision Petition No.7 of 2007 2. Ram Bahadur Gurung S/O Shri Karka Bdr Gurung, R/O F>arkha Busty, P.O. Parka, P.S. Pakyong, East Sikkim. Ms. Kalpana Gurung, D/O Shri Kharkara]. Gurung, R/O Parkha Bust:y, P.O. Parka, P.S. Pakyong, East Sikkim. Ms. Padma Gurung, D/O Shri Kharkara]. Gurung, R/O Parkha Busty, P.O. Parka, P.S. Pakyong, East Sikkim. ` 4. Ms. Neeta Gurung, D/O Shri Man Prasad Gurung, R/O Parkha Busty, P.O. 'Parka, P.S. Pakyong, East Sikkim. 5. Smt. Pabira Gurung, W/O Shri Man Prasad Gurung R/O Thekabong Busty, P.O. Parka, P.S. Pakyong, East Sikkim. 6. Mr. Dhan Bdr. Gurung, S/O Shri Padam Bahadur Gurung, R/O Parkha Busty, P.O. Parka, P.S. Pakyong, East: Sikkim. Mr. Padam Lal Gurung, S/O Shri Dhan Bdr. Gurung, R/O Parkha Busty, P.O. Parka, P.S. Pakyong, East Sikkim. Mr. Sujan Gurung, S/O Govardhan Gurung, R/O Parkha Busty, P.O. Parka, P.S. Pakyong, East Sikkim. ZEEE Mr. Basant Gurung, S/O Shri Bhuvan Singh Gurung, R/O Parkha Busty, P.O. Parka, P.S. Pakyong, East: Sikkim. VERSUS The State of Sikkim For t:he Applicants/ Pet:itioners For the Respondent Petitioners Respondent Mr. Tempo Gyatso Bhutia, Advocate Mr. J. 8. Pradhan, Public Prosecutor wit:h Mr. Karma Thinlay, Additional Public Prosecutor. PRESENT : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SUBBA, JUDGE Last date of hearing : 27th June, 2008 DATE OFJUDGMENT : 7th August, 2008 JUDGMENT A. P. SuBBA, J. •V This is a Revision Petition, jointly filed by t:he Petitioners numbering 9 in all, under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the present Revision Petition may briefly be stated as follows:- All the 9 Revision Petitioners herein, were put on trial for alleged commission of several offences under the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magist:rate, (East and North) at Gangtok. Having come to the conclusion that the case against the accused persons st:ood proved beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced all the 9 accused persons under different sect:ions of law, namely, ? 0 0` HEi under Sect:ions 143/148/325/149, 323/149, 427/149 IPC. Being aggrieved by such order of conviction and sentence, t:he Petitioners preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, (East and North) at Gangtok. After several adjournments which were allowed both at the request of the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the accused persons, the matt:er came up for hearing on 29.10.2007. However, the appellants having remained absent on this date, the learned appellate Court heard and disposed of the matter on merits in the absence of `the appellants. It is against this order that the appellants have come up in the present Revision Petition before this Court. 3` I have heard Mr. Tempo Gyatso Bhutia, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Applicants/Petitioners and Mr. J. 8. Pradhan, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Stat:e - Respondent. 4. The question for consideration is, whether t:he course adopted by the learned first appellate court in disposing of t:he appeal on merit:s in t:he absence of the appellants is in conformity wit:h the law. 5. A perusal of the Revision Pet:ition goes to show that one of t:he grounds taken is that, the impugned order is bad in law inasmuch as, the learned Court below ought to have dismissed the appeal in default instead of disposing of the appeal on merits when the appellants failed to appear on the date of hearing of the appeal. It was thus contended that the approach adopted by the learned Court was contrary to the law. In support of his contention, t:he learned Counsel cited the following decisions :- 1. 1991 C.r.L.J. 2641-2642 {I(arm): Mohammed Salim Husen Sab Savantanavar vs. Healtli Inspector, HDMC Hubli, 2. 1990 Cr.L.J., 286, (Karn) : M. D. Farooq vs. State of I(arnatal{a. 3. AIR 1990 SC 1224 -Dr. Jainendrakumar Vjjaykumar Badjate vs. State of Maharastra r+ r <lr,, e ^® ©` y 6. There is no doubt that the above three decisions, following the ratio .ir\ Ram Naresl. Yadav vs. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 1500, whereiin a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court had held that an appeal can be disposed of on merits only after hearing the appellant or his Counsel, lay down in clear terms that an Appellate Court should not dispose of an appeal on merits on default of the appellants. It is however to be noted that the law laid down in the above Ram Naresh Yadav's case is no longer the good law after the larger Bench dealis.ior\s .ir\ (1996) 4 SCC 720 - Bani Singh & Others vs. State of u.P. ar\d Kishan Singh vs. State of u.P. (1996) 9 SCC 372. D.issencj\ng from the view taken by t:he earlier Division Bench in Ram Naresh Yadav's case, the three judge Bench in Bani Singh's case observed in paragraph 15 of the judgment as follows :- "We are, therefore, of the opinion and we say so with I.espect, that the Division Bench which decided Ram Naresh Yadav case did not apply the pro`/isions of sections 385-386 of the Code correctly, when it indicated that the appellate court was under an obligation to adjourn the case to another date if the appel[ant or his ]a\^ryer remained absent." Analyzing the provision contained in Sections 385-386 Cr.P.C. and laying down the correct position of law, the Court further observed in the same paragraph as follows :- i:Tthe#:adD°D¥iina?ntt:annt#_I:h,:LthGerFi:f€hea:]t.ad[1f°tuhr::h:rtcads::( so as a matter of prudence or indulgence, it is a different #:# ¥ #eisa;::£o:#.tt#:F # =:::¥. a.ff iudqment of the trial court." Similariy, the three judge Bench in Kishan Singh's case observed in paragraph 7 of the judgment as follows :- ................ It is, thus clear, that the duty of the appellate court to examine the petition of appeal arid tlie jLJdgment under challenge and to consider the merits of the case before dismissing tlie appeal summarily is not. dependent on the appel]ant or his counsel appearing before the Court to press tlie appeal. As soon as a petition of appeal is presented LJnder Section 382 or 383 it becomes the duty of the appellate court tl 'y 0` •`t, 7- to consider the same on merits, even in the absence of the appel[ant and his counsel before dismissing the same summarily." It is pertinent to note that t:he principle of law laid down in the above case presently hold the field and the same is being followed in subsequent decisions. One such later decision that can be referred to, is the decision rendered by a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court in G, Ra/- Mallaiah vs, State of A.P. (1998) 5 SCC 123. Lr\ th.is case, the D.iv.is.ion Bench, quoting the above decision with approval, observed that it is open to t:he Court to dispose of an appeal on merits even in the absence of t:he counsel appearing for the parties, when the case is set down for hearing and the Advocate or party concerned does not appear. The only rider added to the law laid down in t:he ].udgment is that t:he principle stated in the above Bani Singh's case would not apply to a case where t:he appellant or his advocat:e remains absent being unaware of the date set down for hearing. 8` The above being the sett:led law on the point, there seems to be no irregularity or illegality in the procedure adopted and followed by the learned Sessions Judge, (East & North) in the matter. The question, however, is whether t:here is compliance with the requirement of law in t:he procedure followed by .the learned appellate Court. The relevant observat:ion made by the learned appellate Court below occurring in paragraph 5 of the impugned ].udgment is as follows :- "Heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the res|]ondent State who referred to oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution in sLlpport of his case". In paragraph 6 it is further observed as follows :- ``1 have gone through the case files including the oral and documentary evidence contained in the case referred and also considered the submission of the learned PP for the Respondent/State". a V a. 9/ The above observat:ions made by the learned t:rial Court, no doubt, indicat:es that the learned Court went through the case files including the oral and documentary evidence contained in the case record while disposing of the appeal. However, it is difficult to come to any conclusion from such mere recital that the learned appellate Court arrived at its conclusion after applying its judicial mind and after perusing the record. It is well settled that the requirement regarding the perusal of record before disposing of an appeal cannot be treated as an empty formality. Indicating the nature of t:he order that is expected of an appellate court in such matters, the AIpex Court .in Shyam Deo Pandey & Others vs. State of Bihar AIR 1971 SC ]606 has observed as follows :- "19 ....................... The consideration of the al]Deal on merits at the staae of final hearina and to arri`/e at a decision on merits and to Bass final orders will not be I)ossjb[e Llnless the reasonina and findinas recorded in the iudament under ai]Deal are tested in tlie liciht of the record of the case." "20 .................... „There must be a clear indication in the iudciment or order Of the ADi]ellate Cot]rt that it has aDD]ied its iudicial mind to the i]articular ai)iJeal with which it was dealina. Such an indication wi[] be available when the ADDellate CoLlrt has considered the materja] on record, wliicli means not on[v the iudament and Petition of aDDea], but also the relevant materials ........... „„ .... „...There will be other materials on record and they have to be perused by the Appe[late Court.................... In Bani Singh's case (supra) which affirmed the above Shyam Deo Pandey's case, it has been observed as follows :- .................. The law clearly expects the appellate court to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merelv bv I)erusjna the reasoning of tlie trial coLirt in the iudament, btit bv cross- checkina the reasoniha witll the evidence on record with a view to satisf\/ina itself that the reasonina and findincis recorded bv the trial court are consistent with the material on record. It becomes clear from the above, that the expression `disposal of an appeal on merit:s' signifies something more than merely hearing the parties and going through the case records. Thus, it goes without saying that the mere recitation by the appellate Court that it has gone through the case file i 7 including t:he evidence and also considered t:he submission addressed without indicating as to what were the materials that were t:aken into consideration and also without indicating as to how the appellate Court was satisfied that the reasoning and finding recorded by the trail Court were found consistent wit:h the mat:erial on record would not be sufficient compliance with the requirement of law. Such being the requirement of law, it is evident that t:here is no substant:ial compliance with the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the present case. Thus, it cannot be said t:hat the impugned order is in conformity wit:h the requirement of law and the procedure which the learned appellate Court ought t:o have followed and complied wit:h. In the result, this Revision Petition succeeds. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded with direct:ion to the learned appellate Court below to rehear the mat:ter according t:o law and in the light of the observat:ions made above. Records of the Court below be sent back forthwit:h. ( A. P. Subba ) JUDGE 07.08.2008