SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1974 Supreme(SC) 287

P.K.GOSWAMI, P.JAGANMOHAN REDDY
Dhondiba Gundu Pomaje – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates:
B.P.MAHESHVARI, M.N.SHROFF, S.B.VAD, Sharad Manohar, SWISH SETHI

JUDGMENT

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.:—We have just no admitted the special leave petition and after the appeal was registered heard the learned Advocates for the parties. This is yet another case in which a criminal first appeal against a conviction has been dismissed summarily under Section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We have heard both sides. Mr. Wad for the State has strenuously contended that the High Court has power to dismiss summarily and has cited several decisions, but in all these cases there is nothing to the contrary to justify a view different from the one we are taking in this case. It is submitted that the dismissal was so summary that even the record was not called for. No doubt. Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code does vest a power in the High Court to dismiss an appeal summarily but it can do so only on a perusal of the petition and the copy of the judgment. Inasmuch as under our Constitution any person aggrieved by an order of the High Court can petition to this Court under Article 136 for special leave, it is not only necessary but having regard to the long series of decisions beginning as far back as 1953 (see 1953 SCR 809) onwards which discourages this prac







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top