Judgment

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:- Special leave granted.

2. The Bombay High Court has done it again. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Desai and Kotwal, JJ. has once again dismissed in limine a Criminal Appeal against a conviction for murder and sentence of imprisonment for life with a single word order : "dismissed". Not once but a dozen times and every time in an appeal from the Bombay High Court, this Court had occasion to point out the impropriety of such summary rejection of an appeal without a speaking order. Again and again the Bombay High Court persists in dismissing criminal appeals in limine without speaking orders. In Shivaji Narayan Bachhav v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 4 SCC 129 we had referred to several of the earlier cases and stated :

"The appeal of the accused of 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 Mushtak Hussein v. State of Bombay, (AIR 1953 SC 282) and thereafter, over the years, in a series of cases from the same High Court : Shreekantiah Ramayya, Munipalli v. State of Bombay, (AIR 1955 SC 287), Vishwanath Shankar Beldar v. State of Maharashtra, (1969 (3) SCC 883), Siddanna Apparao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (AM 1970 SC 977), Narayan Nathu Naik v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1971 SC 1656), Govinda Kadtuji Kadam v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1970 SC 1033), Shaikh Mohd. Ali v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1973 SC 43), Kapurchand Kesrimal Jain v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1973 SC 243), Jeewan Prakash v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 278), Mushtaq Ahmed v. State of Gujarat, (AIR 1973 SC 1222), Krishna Vithu Suroshe v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1974 SC 274), Sampat Tatyada Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1974 SC 791), Dagadu v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1981 SC 1218). We are pained and not a little perturbed, that despite the long series of judgments all arising from cases from the same 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 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-emphasise 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."

3. More than any other authority in the land, we expect the High Cou