SHRIDHAR NAMDEO LAWANDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                  [2013] 7 S.C.R. 1057


             SHRIDHAR NAMDEO LAWAND                          A
                            v.
               STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
           (Criminal Appeal No. 1124 of 2013)
                    AUGUST 5, 2013
                                                             B
   [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, AND RANJANA PRAKASH
          DESAI AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

    Appeal:
                                                             c
     Criminal appeal - Decided by High Court in absence of
counsel for accused - Held: Court should not decide criminal
case in the absence of counsel for the accused - Accused
should not suffer for the fault of his counsel and court must
appoint another counsel as an amicus curiae to defend the 0
accused - It is the duty of appellate court to look into the
evidence adduced in the case so as to arrive at the conclusion
whether prosecution case can be said to have been proved
beyond reasonable doubt - Credibility of a witness has to be
adjudged by appellate court in drawing inference from proved E
and admitted facts - In the case on hand, the said recourse
has not been followed by High Court- Impugned order is set
aside· and matter remitted to High Court for disposal afresh -
- Appellant is in custody for nearly two months as against the
sentence of two years - Therefore, he is ordered to be released
on bail till the disposal of appeal pending before High Court F
- Bail.

     Bani Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR
247 =  (1996) 4 SCC 720 (Larger Bench); Harjinder Singh
vs. State of Punjab 2010 (10) SCR326 = (2010) 13 SCC 533; . G
Iqbal Abdul Samiya Malek vs. State of Gujarat, (2012) 11
SCC 312; KS. Panduranga vs. State of Kamataka, (2013) 3
sec 721 - referred to.
                           1057                              H
    1058    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 7 S.C.R.

A                        Case Law Reference:
        1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 247 referred to               para 8
        2010 (10) SCR 326            referred to          para 8
        (2012) 11 sec 312            referred to          para 8
B
        2013 (3) sec 121             referred to          para 8

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1124 of 2013.
c        From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2012 of the
    High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 220
    of 1997.

        Rakesh Kumar, Naveer Gaur, Debnandan R., for the
o   Appellant.

          Chinmoy Khaladkar, Sanjay Kharde, Asha Gopalan Nair
    for the Respondent.

        The following order of the Court was delivered
E
                                ORDER

        1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

        2. Leave granted.
F
        3. Against the conviction and sentence under Section· 7
    and 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d) of the Prevention of
    Corruption Act, 1988, the appellant has approached the High
    Court by way of Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1997.
G        4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed
    out the following two infirmities in the impugned order.

        (i) The appellant was not heard and the appeal was ·
        disposed of only on the basis of the statement made by
H       the Counsel-State.
      SHRIDHAR NAMDEO LAWAND v. STATE 0F                        1059
                 MAHARASHTRA

      (ii) The High Court has not gone into all the details and has       A
      not appreciated the evidence placed by both sides.

     5. In the light of the said contention, we have carefully
perused the impugned order. Even at the first sight, we noticed
none appeared for the appellant-accused before the High                   8
Court. This is evident from para 2 of the impugned order.
Though, the High Court has mentioned certain factual details,
the fact remains that it has not analyzed the evidence led by
the prosecution and defence pleaded by the appellant-accused.

     6.lt is settled law that court should not decide criminal case       C
in the absence of the counsel for the accused as an accused
in a criminal case should not suffer for the fault of his. counsel
and the court should, in such a situation must appoint another
counsel as an amicus curiae to defend the accused.
                                                                          D
     7. It is also equally settled that it is the duty of the appellate
court to look into the evidence adduced in the case to arrive at
an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can
be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon then
whether prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond                E
reasonable doubt on the said evidence. To put it clear, the
credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate court
in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts. In the
case on hand, the said recourse has not been followed by the
High Court.
                                                                          F
      8. All the above principles have been reiterated in:

     i) Bani Singh & Ors. vs. State of UP., (1996) 4 SCC 720
(Larger Bench)

      ii) Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 13 SCC              G
533

    iii) Iqbal Abdul Samiya Malek vs. State of Gujarat, {2012)
11 sec· 312
                                                                          H
    1060      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013) 7 S.C.R.


A          iv) K. S. Panduranga vs. State of Kamataka, (2013) 3 SCC
    721

          9. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit
    the matt~r to High Court for fresh disposal. We request the High
    Court to ·restore Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1997 on its file
8
    and dispose of the same on merits, after affording opportunity
    to all the parties concerned.

        10. It is brought to our notice that the appellant is in custody
  for nearly two months as against the sentence of two years.
C Taking note of the said aspect, we are inclined to consider the
  claim of the appellant for bail. Therefore, the appellant is
  ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Special
  Judge for Greater Bombay in Session Case No. 57 of 1990
  arising out of FIR bearing CR No. 14/1989 PS, Anti Corruption
D Bureau, Greater Bombay till the disposal of the appeal pending
  before the High Court.

        11. The Special Judge is free to impose appropriate
    condition(s) as he deems fit.
E          12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

    R.P.                                        Appeal disposed of.