State of Karnataka Vs. Surender
Kotiankar [1984] INSC 137 (13 August 1984)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA
(J) MISRA RANGNATH
CITATION: 1984 AIR 1586 1985 SCR (1) 349 1984
SCC (4) 370 1984 SCALE (2)232
ACT:
Constitution of India, Article 136-Discretion
of the Court to grant Special Leave to Appeal in criminal proceedings-Whether
in the absence of necessary papers giving full facts, the Court may refuse
leave.
Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XXI-Special
Leave Petitions in Criminal proceedings must contain necessary papers giving
full facts.
HEADNOTE:
In the petitions for special leave to appeal
in criminal proceedings, the petitioner annexed only a copy of the judgment of
the High Court but did not file any papers, such as, copies of the charge-sheets
or the judgment of the Trial Court which could give full picture of the facts.
Dismissing the petitions,
HELD : 1. The Supreme Court in the exercise
of its jurisdiction under Article 136 may not propose to proceed further in the
matter in which the petitioner has not chosen to file any papers in the court
apart from the judgment of the High Court. Therefore, in the instant case, the
Court will not be justified in issuing a show cause notice to the respondent
when no attempt has been made to place all the facts before it by filing the
necessary documents. [350C-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 1288 to 1301 of 1983.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31st
January, 1983 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl. Appeal Nos. 461 to 474 of
1981.
K.L. Sharma and M. Veerappa for the
petitioner.
The Order of the Court mass delivered by 350
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. On pleas of guilty, the respondent was convicted of several
charges under Sections 408 and 477A and sentenced in each case, by the Trial
Magistrate, to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of
either Rs. 50 or Rs. 100. The State preferred appeals to the High Court for
enhancement of the sentences. The appeals were dismissed on the ground that the
accused was a young man who had already been punished sufficiently by the loss
of his job and also in view of the circumstance that more than ten years had
elapsed since the date of offence. We are prima facie satisfied that the
sentences are inadequate and that the lenient sentences are the result of
misplaced sympathy. We do not however propose to proceed further in the matter
in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 as the State of Karnataka
who is the petitioner before us has not chosen to file any papers before us
apart from the judgment of the High Court. The least that the petitioner could
have done to give us a full picture of the facts was to file copies of the
charge-sheets and the charges and copies of the judgments of the Trial Court in
the different cases. We do not think that we will be justified in issuing a
show-cause notice to the respondents when no attempt has been made to place all
the facts before us by filing the necessary documents. Apparently there is no
purposefulness in the filing of these petitions. They are accordingly
dismissed.
M.L.A. Petitions dismissed.
Back