The High Court should not summarily dismiss an appeal if it raises arguable and substantial points.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SUMMARY DISMISSAL - JUSTIFICATION - ARGUMENTS RAISED BY APPELLANT - RELIANCE ON INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH S. 479-A, CR. P. C. - HIGH COURT'S FAILURE TO CONSIDER SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES - REMAND FOR FRESH DISPOSAL.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a police Sub-Inspector, was convicted and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment for offences under Ss. 195 and 196 read with S. 34, I. P. C., for fabricating false evidence and procuring conviction of accused in a dacoity case. The High Court summarily dismissed the appellant's appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in summarily dismissing the appeal as it raised arguable and substantial points. The Court found that the Sessions Judge had relied heavily on inadmissible evidence given by a co-accused in the dacoity case and on the co-accused's answers under S. 342 Cr. P. C., which could not be used against the appellant. The Court also found that the appellant was not given an opportunity to be heard before the complaint was filed against him, as required under S. 479-A, Cr. P. C.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court was justified in summarily dismissing the appellant's appeal. 2. Whether the Sessions Judge erred in relying on inadmissible evidence and in not complying with S. 479-A, Cr. P. C.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court should not summarily dismiss an appeal if it raises arguable and substantial points. 2. The Sessions Judge erred in relying on inadmissible evidence and in not complying with S. 479-A, Cr. P. C.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dismissing the appeal and remanded the case for fresh disposal.

Judgement

VAIDIALINGAM, J. : The appellant, who was the second accused, in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1967, and accused No. 1, were found guilty, under S. 195 and S. 196 read with S. 34, I. P. C., and each of them has been convicted and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, for these offences, and the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The case of the first accused, is not before us, in these proceedings.

2. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence, passed against him, before the High Court of Bombay, in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1967. A division Bench of the High Court has, by its order dated April 27, 1967, summarily dismissed the appeal, in one word dismissed . The appellant has come up, to this Court, by special leave. But this Court, by its order dated September 7, 1967, has granted special leave, limited to the question as to whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal summarily. That is the only point, that arises for consideration, in this appeal.

3. It is necessary, to set out briefly, the circumstances under which the appellant, who was a police Sub-Inspector, along with one Dilawar, who was accused No. 1, came to be charge-sheeted and tried, in Sessions Case No. 9 of l967. In connection with a dacoity which is alleged to have taken place, on July 18, 1965, when the Bombay-Howrah Mail was stopped, at the outer signal of Nagpur Railway Station, one Ambadas and Deorao, and certain others, were prosecuted before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1966. In that trial, the prosecution had to prove certain recoveries made, on the basis of three memos, which have been marked, in the present Sessions Trial, as Exhibits 7, 8 and 14. Those memos had been attested by two panch witnesses, Pochanna and Abdul Gani. Pochanna fumed hostile and, therefore, the prosecution tried to establish the recoveries made, under these memos, by the other Panch witness, Abdul Gani. The first accused, in the present Sessions trial, gave evidence, on June 10, l966, in Sessions Case No. 8 of l966, that he is Abdul Gani and that he has attested the recovery memos. The appellant, before us, was examined in that trial, on June 11, 1966, and he has stated that the witness, who has spoken to the recovery memos, was Abdul Gani and that he has attested the recovery memos; but, latter on, the accused in the dacoity case, appear to have entertained a suspicion that the first accused, in these proceedings, who claimed to be Abdul Gani and spoke to having attested the recovery memos, is not the real Abdul Gani, but Dilawar. This suspicion was brought to the notice of the Sessions Judge, trying the dacoity case, on June 14, 1966. The Sessions Judge, Sri Waikar, caused the present first accused, to be brought before him and further examined him, in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1966. The witness appears to have stated that he was not Abdul Gani, but really Dilawar, and that he had come to the Court, on June 10, 1966 and given evidence, as Abdu1 Gani, on the compulsion and threat of the present appellant.

4. On the same day, i. e., June 14, 1966, Mr. Waikar issued a notice to the appellant, to show cause why a complaint should not be laid against him, for offences under Ss. 195, 196 and 205, I. P. C. By the said notice, the appellant was directed to appear before the Court, on June 16, 1966. The appellant appeared and pleaded, on June 16, 1966, that he had not committed any offence and the he bona fide believed that the present 1st accused was Abdul Gani, and that he had never compelled one Dilawar to appear before the Court and give evidence, as Abdul Gani. The appellant was further examined, in the dacoity case, on June 17, 1966, and he was also cross-examined, by the accused, in the dacoity case.

5. On June 22, 1966, the learn Sessions Judge, Nagpur, acquitted all the accused, in the dacoity case. In the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has stated that the present accused N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document