1. Conviction under Sections 147 and 307 IPC — Criminal appeal dismissed for want of prosecution due to advocates' strike — Application for restoration dismissed. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 486
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, C.J.I., AND S. MOHAN, J.
MANGILAL AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 1994{From the Judgment and Order dated 11-10-1993 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 117 of 1986}, decided on April 27, 1994
Advocates appeared
S.K. Gambhir and Vivek Gambhir, Advocates, for the Appellants.
Advocates:
S.K.Gambhir, VIVEK GAMBHIR
S.K.Gambhir, VIVEK GAMBHIR
Important Points
Judges must maintain judicial restraint and impartiality, ensuring personal prejudice or extraneous factors, such as newspaper reports or disputes with advocates, do not influence decisions. Dismissing an appeal for want of prosecution based on a judge's disapproval of the reasons for a lawyers' strike is unwarranted.
Subject
Criminal Law - Judicial Conduct
Act Referred
Headnote
Practice and Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147 and 307 - Conviction under - Appeal - Adjourned since the lawyers were on strike on that day - Absence of appellants counsel on the adjourned date as the lawyers were on strike - Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution - High Court discussing in detail the reason for the lawyers strike - Lack of judicial restraint - Observations made are unwarranted - Order of dismissal of restoration application liable to be set aside - Appeal is directed to be restored to file.
Held: We are afraid that the High Court has shown a lack of judicial restraint and decreed in adverting to and influenced by matters, which were extraneous. The judicial proceedings in this Court relating to administrating the High Court during that period would indicate that this went severely wrong in the High Courts administration in certain matters. The fact is that the advocates were on strike justifiably or otherwise. Why should the court embark on the reason for the strike, which was not the issue before it? Therefore, all the observations that we have quoted above were totally unwarranted. A Judge must be of sterner stuff. His mental equipoise must always retrain firm and unselected. It is essential a judge should not allow his personal prejudice to go into the decision-making. (Para 5)
Further held: Should the judge take cognizance of the newspaper report and the reasons that prompted the advocates to seek transfer of the then Chief Justice? The learned Judge should not have let out his bile against the advocates who are free to hold any opinion as to the lapses committed by the then Chief Justice. Holding of such opinions can hardly be characterized as an unruly attitude on the part of the advocates. Such holding of opinions, nor again, would either obstruct or disturb the judiciary. If the learned Judge had the slightest compunction he should have rescued himself. (Para 6)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the court erred by considering the reasons behind the advocates' strike and commenting on their conduct instead of merely verifying the justification for their absence. (Para 3 )
3. The High Court lacked judicial restraint by relying on extraneous newspaper reports and personal prejudice regarding the advocates' strike to dismiss the appeal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Judicial decisions must be based on relevant legal rules and dispassionate thought, free from personal prejudice or extraneous considerations regarding the conduct of advocates. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
5. Impugned order set aside — Criminal appeal restored for hearing on merits. (Para 8 )
6. Can a court dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution based on the reasons behind an advocates' strike?
No. The court should not embark on the reasons for a strike or rely on extraneous matters like newspaper reports to judge the conduct of advocates; it must remain impartial and avoid personal prejudice. (Para 5 , 7 )
7. What is the expected standard of judicial conduct regarding personal prejudice and impartiality?
A judge must maintain mental equipoise and think dispassionately, submerging private feelings and avoiding personal prejudice to ensure the judicial process remains fair and independent. (Para 5 , 6 )
8. Does holding an opinion about the administration of a High Court constitute an unruly attitude by advocates?
No. Advocates are free to hold opinions regarding lapses in court administration, and such opinions do not necessarily constitute an unruly attitude or an obstruction of the judiciary. (Para 7 )
Judgment
MOHAN, J.- Leave granted.
2. The appellants were tried before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1985 for offences under Sections 147 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. On trial, they were convicted and sentenced as per the judgment dated 23-1-1986 as under. Rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs 500 each, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 1986 in the High Court. On 27-8-1993 the appeal came up before D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. It was adjourned since the lawyers at Jabalpur were on strike on that day. Thereafter the matter was listed on 11-10-1993. On that day also the lawyers were on strike. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment for want of prosecution. On 20-11-1993 an application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure was preferred for restoration of the appeal and to decide the same on merits. By an order dated 26-11-1993 the said application was dismissed. Hence, the special leave petition.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the Court should not have gone into the question as to what prompted the advocates to go on strike. On the contrary, it should have have merely enquired into the facts whether there is justification for the absence of the appellants counsel when the appeal was taken up for hearing. It was also not correct to have commented upon the conduct of the advocate in relation to the strike.
4. It is unfortunate that Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 1986 came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. While dismissing the appeal on 11-10-1993 the High Court observed as under:
"No Advocate nor their Association has apprised this Court about the grievances of the Advocates and why they do not wish to appear in this Court. But in this connection news have been published in the newspapers from time to time. It appears from the news published in the local newspapers that on 13-8-1993 and 14-8-1993 representatives of the Advocates met the Honble Chief Justice of India and the Minister for Law and submitted a memorandum and requested for transfer of the Chief Justice of this High Court to some other High Court. After that, after passing a resolution on 18-8-1993 for the same transfer issue decision to go on strike for a week was taken. Thereafter, on 23-8-1993 in a meeting of Bar Association an opinion was expressed that Justice Gulab Gupta of this High Court is the only Justice who has got support from the Chief Justice as such he is also responsible for the acts of the Chief Justice. It appears that on this account only the Bar Association has demanded that this Court should also be transferred. It is learnt that a writ petition has been preferred seeking transfer of the Chief Justice and it is under consideration. The learned Justices of the Supreme Court have urged the Advocates of this Court that during the pendency of the said writ petition they should not resort to any such agitation and withdraw the agitation that is being continued by them. News items published in the newspapers indicate that the strike has been called off on 13-9-1993 and a decision has been taken to boycott appearance before the Chief Justice and this Court. As regards the question of transfer of the Chief Justice, it is under the consideration of Supreme Court and hence this Court need not say anything in this context. As far as this Court is concerned, the Advocates hold that this Court has got the support of the Chief Justice and as such this Court also is responsible for the lapses committed by the Chief Justice and this can never be accepted. This decision of the Advocates speaks of their unruly attitude and for this the judicial process would not be allowed to be obstructed or disturb
