Summary
The petitioner, acquitted of murder at trial, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court on the State's appeal. His statutory appeal to this Court under Section 2(a) of the Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970 was dismissed in limine without reasons, as was his review. Under Article 32 he challenged the 1981 deletion of the rule allowing ex parte summary dismissal of such appeals, and the absence of guidelines in the 2013 Rules. The Court held that the deletion implemented, not departed from, the Constitution Bench ruling in Sita Ram. In appeals under Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or Section 2 of the 1970 Act, the rule is notice, records and reasons, and summary dismissal is an exception. Having been decided on the judicial side, the petitioner's own appeal could not be reopened under Article 32. The petition was disposed of.
Issues
- Whether the 1981 deletion of Order XXI Rule 15(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, permitting ex parte summary dismissal of appeals as of right in criminal cases, was contrary to Sita Ram v. State of U.P.
- Whether the absence of guidelines in the 2013 Rules for preliminary hearing of such appeals makes them unconstitutional, and what procedure governs these appeals.
Provisions considered
- Section 2, Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970It confers a right of appeal where the High Court reverses an acquittal and imposes life imprisonment or ten years or more. As a right protecting Article 21, such appeals ordinarily require notice, the record and a reasoned decision. (¶¶ 14, 15, 24, 26, 35, 36)
- Articles 21, 32, 134 and 145, Constitution of IndiaThe right of appeal under Article 134 and the 1970 Act forms part of fair procedure under Article 21. A judicial dismissal of an appeal, confirmed on review, cannot be undone by a writ petition under Article 32. (¶¶ 12, 17, 24, 26, 38)
- Order XX Rules 5(1) and 21, Supreme Court Rules, 2013Order XX Rule 5(1) does not list these appeals for ex parte hearing. The Sita Ram principles continue to govern preliminary hearing of such appeals, so the absence of express guidelines does not invalidate the rules. (¶¶ 34, 35, 37)
Held
- Sita Ram upheld the summary-dismissal rule only by reading it down. For appeals under Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or Section 2 of the 1970 Act, the rule is notice, records and reasons. Dismissal at a preliminary hearing is reserved for exceptional cases where there is truly no point, since otherwise the distinction between a right of appeal and special leave would vanish. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26)
- The record showed that the Full Court deleted Rule 15(1)(c) in 1981 to give effect to Sita Ram, so that such appeals would not be dismissed ex parte without notice. The deletion confers no uncharted discretion to dismiss summarily. The Sita Ram principles continue to govern preliminary hearing under the 2013 Rules, including Order XX Rule 21. (¶¶ 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37)
- In such appeals, notice should ordinarily issue, the record should be called for, both sides heard and reasons recorded. Reasons are required by natural justice and fairness because the accused's liberty is at stake, and they assure that the statutory appeal was considered judiciously. (¶¶ 35, 36)
- The petitioner's appeal had been dismissed in limine without reasons, but it was decided on the judicial side and a review was also dismissed. The Court could not issue a contrary direction under Article 32. He was left at liberty to pursue remedies available in law, without any finding on the effect of the co-accused's reasoned appeal judgment. (¶ 38)
Result
Writ petition disposed of, with the declaration that the Sita Ram principles of notice, records and reasons govern appeals under Article 134(1)(a) or (b) and Section 2 of the 1970 Act. The petitioner is left to pursue other remedies in law.