Judgment

DUA, J.:- The four appellants, along with Kondu son of Ambu, were jointly tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Akola on the following charges:

That you all accused Nos. 1 to 5 on or about 12th day of November, 1967 at about 5.45 a.m. near Farshi on Risod Nazambpur Road, formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of such assembly viz., to commit murder of complainant Vithalrao Khanderao Deshmukh or in order to cause murder of Vithalrao or grievious hurts to him committed the offence of rioting and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court.

That you all on the same date, time and place, were members of unlawful assembly, in prosecution of common object of which viz., to commit murder of Vithalrao or to cause murder to Vithalrao or to cause grievous hurts to him, one or all you caused grievous hurts to him which offence you knew to be likely to be committing in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly you are thereby under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code guilty of causing of the said offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court.

That you all on the same date, time and place attempted to cause murder of Vithalrao Deshmukh, in furtherance of common intention and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court.

The order of the trial Court convicting them all concludes thus:

All the five accused are convicted for the offence of rioting punishable under Section 147, Indian Penal Code and each is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the period of six months and to a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for two weeks for that offence.

.....Substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The accused shall surrender to their bail.

They all jointly appealed to the High Court of Bombay by one memorandum of appeal., Chandurkar J., admitted the appeal only on behalf of Kondu and dismissed in limine the appeal on behalf of the four appellants before us. The only point which concerns this Court in the present appeal by special leave relates to the correctness of the order dismissing in limine the appeal on behalf of the four appellants, when the appeal on behalf of Kondu, co-accused was admitted for hearing on the merits after notice to the State.

2. We may at the outset point out that though on appeal under Section 410,Cr. P. C. by a persons convicted at a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge the appellant is entitled under Section 418 of the Code of challenge the conclusions both on facts and of law and to ask for a reappraisal of the evidence, the appellate Court has nevertheless full power under Section 421, Cr. P. C. to dismiss the appeal in limine even without sending for the records, if on perusal of the impugned order and the petition of the appeal it is satisfied with the correctness of the order appealed against. This power, it may be emphasised, has to be exercised after perusing the petition of appeal and the copy of the order appealed against and after affording to the appellant or his pleader a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the appeal. The summary decision is accordingly a judicial decision which vitally affects the convicted appellant and in a fit case it is also open to challenge on appeal in this Court. All order summarily dismissing an appeal by the word rejected , as is the case before us, though not violative of any statutory provision removes nearly every opportunity for detection of errors in the order. Such an order does not speak and is inscrutable giving no indication of the reasoning underlying it. It may at times embarrass this Court when the order appealed against prima facie gives rise to arguable points which this Court is required to consider without having the