Summary
The Supreme Court set aside an unreasoned High Court dismissal of a criminal revision challenging conviction. A bare statement that no manifest error or illegality existed did not show judicial consideration of the factual and legal issues. The revision was restored for a fresh merits decision, preferably within six months. The Court left the accused’s substantive submissions for the High Court rather than deciding guilt.
Issues
- Whether the summary, unreasoned dismissal of the criminal revision could stand.
Held
- The High Court had to apply its judicial mind to the factual and legal aspects and give reasons for the appropriate decision. Its bare assertion of no manifest error or illegality was insufficient. (¶ 10–12)
- The accused could raise their substantive arguments on remand. The Supreme Court expressed no merits determination and requested a fresh decision preferably within six months. (¶ 13–15)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and criminal revision remanded for fresh decision on merits, preferably within six months.