Munir Sayed Ibna Hussain Vs. The State
of Maharashtra & ANR  INSC 276 (12 November 1975)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
CITATION: 1976 AIR 1992 1976 SCR (2) 687 1976
SCC (3) 548
Sec 421 of Criminal Procedure Code-Practice
of High Court in dismissing criminal appeals without giving any reasons
disapproved-Power of High Court to dismiss a Criminal appeal in limine.
The appellant an owner of a hotel was
prosecuted along with five others for forcibly dispossessing the complainant
who was the Manager of the Hotel and further for misappropriating certain
properties including some money belonging to the complainant. According to the
appellant, the complainant was merely a licensee. The Trial Court acquitted
accused Nos. 3 to 6 and convicted accused No. 1 and 2. The High Court admitted
the appeal of accused No. 2 and acquitted him. The appeal of the appellant
accused No. 1 was, however, rejected by the High Court it limine without giving
any reasons for the rejection.
On an appeal by Special Leave,
HELD: 1. There is a whole catena of cases
which have come up to this Court from the Bombay High Court in which this Court
has consistently disapproved of the practice followed by the Bombay High Court
of not giving reasons when exercising its power of summary dismissal of
criminal appeals which lie both on questions of fact and law. In other High
Courts such appeals are automatically admitted.
The power of summary rejection under section
421 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be only exercised when the Court is
satisfied from a, perusal of the judgment as well as the record that there is
absolutely no reasonable possibility of its success for reasons to be mentioned
in the order of dismissal. In the present case, it cannot be- said that there
are no arguable points. It is difficult to believe that the judgments of this
court have neither come to the knowledge of the Bombay High Court nor were
cited on behalf of' the appellant In any case, the law having been declared by this
Court, it is the duty of the Bombay High Court to act in accordance with
Article 141 of the constitution and to apply it by giving proper reasons to
justify whatever be its view. The judgment of the Bombay High Court was set
aside and it was directed that the case should, be treated as admitted for
regular hearing in the Bombay High Court and should be disposed of in
accordance with law. [688-C, E, F, G, 689-AB] F
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 191 of 1971.
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order of the Bombay High Court dated 25-2-1972 in criminal appeal No. 683
of 1971.) M/s. M. K. Ramamurthi & Co. for the appellant.
M. N. Shroff and Vineet Kumar, for the
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG,
J. The allegations, on questions of fact raised in the appeal now before us,
were quite unusual. The judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of
Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 1971, in respect of coaccused Syed Ali
Naki Hade Hasan, who was acquitted on 25-2-1972, shows the nature of the
allegations made by the prosecutor 688 in this case. On those allegations, it
became necessary to consider whether the accused, who had been put on trial
together with six others, was actually in possession of a Hotel. The appellant
claimed to be the owner of a hotel of which Jagannath, complainant, was said to
be the manager.
The case of the Manager was that he had been
forcefully dispossessed by the accused and that certain properties belonging to
him and others, including some money, were mis- appropriated by the accused.
Therefore, the appellant and five others were charged under Section 395 Indian
Penal Code as well as under Section 452 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
According to the accused, Shri Jagannath and
his brother, the complainant, were only licensees. However, these are questions
relating to the merits of a case in which the Trial Court had acquitted accused
numbers 3 to 8 and the High Court acquitted accused No. 2. The appeal of the
only remaining accused, accused No. 1, who is the appellant before us by
special leave was, however, rejected in limine by the High Court without giving
any reasons for the rejection.
There is a whole catena of cases which have
come up here from the Bombay High Court in which this Court has consistently
disapproved of the practice followed by the Bombay High Court of not giving
reasons when exercising its power of summary dismissal of criminal s appeals
which lie both on questions of fact and law. In other High Courts, such appeals
are automatically admitted. In any case, it is not possible for this Court to
exercise its powers satisfactorily without giving an appellant, who may have an
arguable case, an opportunity of first presenting his case to the High Court
and getting a decision from it.
The power of a summary rejection of a
criminal 1st appeal, even though it is exercisable under the provisions of
Section 421 Criminal Procedure Code, should, in our opinion, be only exercised
when the Court is satisfied, from a perusal of the judgment as well as the
record, that there is absolutely no reasonable possibility of its success for
the reasons mentioned in the order. In a case such as the one now before us, it
cannot be said that there are no such arguable points that, after the High
Court had an opportunity of fully considering both sides of the case, it must
necessarily dismiss the appeal. At least, in such cases, where there are
arguable points, the High Court should give its grounds and reasons in support
of its decision to reject summarily on some absolutely clinching ground. This
Court has laid down the duty upon the High Court to record reasons. (See:
Mushtak Hussein v. The State of Bombay (13; Krishna Vithu Surosha v. State of Maharashtra (2); Mustaq Ahmed Mohmed Hussain & Anr. v. The State of Gujarat(3);
Kapurchand Kesrimal Jain v. The State of Maharashtra(4) .
It is difficult to believe that judgments of
this Court have neither come to the knowledge of the Bombay High Court nor were
cited on behalf of the appellant. In any case, the law having been declared by
this Court, it is the duty of the Bombay High Court to act in accordance (1)
 SCR 809. (2)  (3) S.C.C. 404.
(3)  (1) S.C.C. 702. (4)  (3)
689 with Article 141 of the Constitution and
to apply it by giving proper reasons to justify whatever be its view.
Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set
aside the order of the High Court rejecting the appeal summarily and order that
the case will be treated as admitted for regular hearing of both sides by the
Bombay High Court, and disposed of in accordance with the law. ,, P.H.P. Appeal