Holding

A summary dismissal of a criminal appeal in limine without reasons, especially in serious cases like murder, violates the right of appeal and must be set aside; the power under Section 384 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and with a speaking order.

Summary

Shivaji Narayan Bachhav was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by a Sessions Judge. He appealed to the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the appeal in limine with a one‑word order, "dismissed." The appellant filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that while Section 384 of the CrPC authorises a court to dismiss an appeal in limine, this power must be exercised sparingly and with a speaking order, especially in serious cases such as murder with life imprisonment. A summary dismissal without reasons effectively denies the statutory right of appeal. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order, allowed the petition, and directed the High Court to admit and hear the appeal on its merits.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can dismiss a criminal appeal in limine under Section 384 CrPC without a speaking order, particularly in a murder case with life imprisonment.
Whether such summary dismissal amounts to a denial of the statutory right of appeal.
Whether the Supreme Court may intervene under Article 136 to set aside the High Court's order.

Legislation cited

Subjects

appeal in limineright of appealSection 384 CrPCmurder convictionlife imprisonmentspecial leaveArticle 136summary dismissalspeaking order

Judgment

•

651

SHIVAJI NARAYAN BACHHAV
A
v.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

August 18, 1983
B
·(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND E. $. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.j

Special Leave to appeal-Grant of in cases where the High Court summarily
· rejects the appeal against conviction ·and sentence in limine-Order XXI of the
Supreme Court Rules read with Arricle 136 of the Constitution-Exercising such
a power to dismiss an appeal in limine under Sec~ion 384 .nf the Criminal c
.. Procedure Code by the High Co14rf, would iantamount to denial of right of appeal.
-~
The petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s 302 1.P.C. and sentenced
to life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge. The appeal preferred. by him was
dismissed by the High Court of Bombay in limine. Hence the appeal by
Special leave. D
Allowing the petition and directing the High Court to admit the app~al and
deal with it according to law, the court

HELD : An appellate Court has the undoubted power to dismiss an
appeal in limine, as provided under section 384 of thC Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure. But, it is a power which must ·be exercised sparingly and 1with gieat E
circun1spection, more so in a case where the conviction is for murder and the
sentence is one Qf imprisonment for life, which are serious enough \natters for
the High Court ~o warrant admission of the appeal an·d fair and independent
consideration of the-evidence by the High Court. Summary rejection of the
appeal with the laconic expression, "dismissed" is a drastic step in such cases.
[653 C.E) F
To so reject an appeal is to practically deny the right of appeal. 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 Code; an
appeal may be bqth against conviction and on facts and law. A cori.victed
person is entitled to ask an appellate Court to reappraise the evidence and
come to its own conclllsion. Therefore, it is necessary to make a speaking Order,
G
while dismissing a criminal appeal. (653 E-F] ·

Mustaq Hussain v. State of Bombay, [1953] S.C.R. 809; Ramayya v.
State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 287; Vishwanath Shankar Reidar v. State. of
Maharashtra, [1969J 3 S.C.C. 883; Siddanna Appa Rao v. State of Maharashtra H
A.l.R. 1970 S.C. 977; Narayan Nathu Naik v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R'.
1971 S.C. 1656; Govinda Kadutji Kadam v. Slate of Maharashtra, A.J.R. 1970
§.<;:. 1033; Sha;k Moh~med AU v. State of Maha,rashtr~, A.I.R. 1973 S.<;:. 43;
[652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983) 3 s.c .•R.

K. K Jainv. State'{Jf·/ofahrashtra, A.~.R. 1973 S.C. 243; Jeewan Prakash v.
A State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 278; Mustaq Ahmed v. State of Ma!U>-
rashtra, A.LR. 1973 S.C. 1122; Krishna Vithu. Suros!ie v. State of Maharashtra,·
A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 274; Sampaia Tatyada Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R.
1974 S.C. 791; and Dagadu v. St~te of Maharashtra, 1981 CrJ. L.J. 724;
reiterated.

B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 386
of 1983.

from tjie Judgment and Order ~ated the 23rd June, 1981
of t)le High Court of )Jombay in Cr!. Appeal No. 1138 and 1144
of 1980.
c
S. N. Jha, A micus Curiae for the Appellant.

M, N. Shroff for the Respondent.

D The Order of the Court was delivered by

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Special Leave Granted.

The appeal of the accused to -the High Court was _dismissed .
E su111marily with the one word 'dismissed', placing this Court in a
most embarrassing position in dealing with the special leave petition
under Art. 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 M11shtaq Hussain v. State of Bombay(') and
therGl\f(er, over the years, in .a series of cases from the same High
F Court : Ramayya v. State of Bombay('), Vishwanath Shankar Be/dar
v, $f!'te pf :Maharashtra(•), Siqdanna Appa Rao v. State. of Maha-
rashtra('). Narayan Nathu Naik v. State of Maharashtra('), Govinda
Kadutji Kadam v. Stale of Maharashtra('), Shaik Mohamed Ali v.
State of Maharashtra('), K. K. Jain v. State of Maharashtra(•), Jeewan
.G •
(1) [19531 S.C.R. 809.
(2) A.l.R. 1955 S.C. 287.
(3) (1969) 3 s.c.c. 883.
(4) A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 977.
H (5) A. J.R. 1971S.C.1656.
(6) A.I.ll. 1970 S.C. !033.
(7) A.f.R. 1973 S.C. 43.
(8) A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 243,
SHIVAJI NARAYAN v. MAHARJ rn1RA ( CMnnoppa Reddy,J. 653

Prakash v. State of Maharashtra('), Mushtaq Ahmed v State of
. Maharashtra('), Krishna Vitim Suroshe v. State of Maharashtra('), A
Sampaia Tatyada Shinde v. State of Maharashtra('), Dagadu v. State
of Maharashtra('). We are pained, and not a little perturbed, that
despite the long series of judgments all arising from cases from the
same High Court, the High Court has not chosen to correct itself
and continues in the error of its ways. Except in certain cases when B
an accused person has pleaded guilty and in petty cases, every person
convicted of an offence has a right of appeal ·under the Crim.inal Pro-
cedure 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 c
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 9onsideration of D
the evidence by the High Court. Summary rejection of the appeal
with the laconic expression 'dismisssed' 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 overemphasise the importance
of the High Court making a speaking order when dismissing a E
Criminal Appeal in liinine. "The requirement of recording reasons
for summary disrpissal, 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 tiie record before it. In the present case there is not even an
indication whether the record had been called for and whether it F
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.

S,R. • fetitio.n allowed. G

(I) A,J.R. 1973 S.C. 278.
(2) A.1.R. 1973 S.C, 1122.
(3) A.LR. 1974 S.C 274. •
14) A.l.R. 1974 S.C. 791.
(5) (1981] Cr!. L.J. 7~1,