Summarize the following court judgment. N: Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 1983. From the Judgment and order dated the 23rd June	 1981 of the High Court of Bombay in Crl. Appeal No. 1138 and 1144 of 1980. section N. Jha	 Amicus Curiae for the Appellant. M. N. Shroff for the Respondent. The order of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY	 J. Special Leave granted. The appeal of the accused to the High Court was 'dismissed '	 summarily with the one word 'dismissed '	 placing this Court in a most embarrassing position in dealing with the special leave petition under article 136 of the Constitution. Such summary rejection of appeals by the High Court has been disapproved by this Court more than thirty years ago in Mushtaq Hussain vs State of Bombay(13 and thereafter	 over the year;	 in a series of cases from the same High Court: Ramayya vs State of Bombay( ')	 Vishwanath Shankar Beldar vs State of Mahatashtra(3)	 Siddanna Appa Rao vs State of Maharashtra(4). Narayan Nathu Naik vs State of Maharashtra(5)	 Govinda kadutji Kadam vs State of Maharashtra(6)	 Shaik Mohamed Ali vs State of Maharashtra(7)	 K. K. Jain vs State of Maharashtra(8)	 Jeewan 653 Prakash vs State of Maharashtra(l)	 Mushtaq Ahmed v State of Maharashtra(2)	 Krishna Vithu Suroshe vs State of Maharashtra(3)	 Sampata Tatyada Shinde vs State of Maharashtra(4)	 Dagadu vs State of Maharashtra(s). We are pained	 and not a little perturbed	 that despite the long series of judgments all arising from cases from the same High Court	 the High Court has not chosen to correct itself and continues in the error of its ways. Except in certain cases when an accused person has pleaded guilty and in petty cases	 every person convicted of an offence has a right of appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code. An appeal may be both against conviction and sentence and on facts and law. A convicted person is entitled to ask an appellate Court to reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion. An appellate Court has the undoubted power to dismiss an appeal in limine. Section 384 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for it. But	 it is a power which must be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection. One would think a conviction for murder and a sentence of imprisonment for life	 as in the case before us	 were serious enough matters for the High Court to warrant b 'admission ' of the appeal and fair and independent consideration of the evidence by the High Court. Summary rejection of the appeal with the laconic expression 'dismissed ' seems to be a drastic step in such cases. To so reject an appeal is to practically deny the right of appeal. We cannot also over emphasis the importance of the High Court making a speaking order when dismissing a Criminal Appeal in limine. "The requirement of recording reasons for summary dismissal	 however concise	 serves to ensure proper functioning of the judicial process". There must be some indication that the High Court addressed itself to the questions at issue and had the record before it. In the present case there. is not even an indication whether the record had been called for and whether it was before the Court. We have little option but to set aside the order of the High Court. The High Court may now 'admit ' the appeal and deal with it according to law.

The petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the High Court of Bombay in limine. Hence the appeal by Special leave. Allowing the petition and directing the High Court to admit the appeal and deal with it according to law	 the court ^ HELD: An appellate Court has the undoubted power to dismiss an appeal in limine	 as provided under section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But	 it is a power which must be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection	 more so in a case where the conviction is for murder and the sentence is one of imprisonment for life	 which are serious enough matters for the High Court to warrant admission of the appeal and fair and independent consideration of the evidence by the High Court. Summary rejection of the appeal with the laconic expression	 "dismissed" is a drastic step in such cases.[653 C E] To so reject an appeal is to practically deny the right of appeal. Except in certain cases when an accused person has pleaded guilty and in petty cases every person convicted of an offence has a right of appeal under the Code; an appeal may be both against conviction and on facts and law. A convicted person is entitled to ask an appellate Court to reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion. Therefore	 it is necessary to make a speaking order	 while dismissing a criminal appeal. [653 E F] Mustaq Hussain vs State of Bombay	 [ ; ; Ramayya vs State of Bombay	 ; ; Vishwanath Shankar Beldar vs State of Maharashtra	 ; Siddanna Appa Rao vs State of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1970 S C. 977; Narayan Nathu Naik vs State of Maharashtra	 A.l. R. ; Govinda Kadutji Kadam vs State of Maharashtra	 ; Shaik Mohamed Ali vs State of Maharastra	 A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 43; 652 K.K. Jain vs State of Maharashtra	 A.l. R. ; Jeewan Prakash vs State of Maharashtra	 A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 278; Mustaq Ahmed vs State of Maharashtra	 A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1122; Krishna Vithu Suroshe vs State of Maharashtra	 A.I.R. ; Sampata Tatyada Shinde vs State of Maharashtra	 A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 791; and Dagadu vs State of Maharashtra	 ; reiterated.