Supreme CourtFull Bench

Gulab and Others vs State of Maharashtra

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 8 December 1976 · Citation: AIR 1977 SC 1913 : (1977) 1 SCC 495 : (1978) ShimLC 129 : (1978) 10 UJ 61

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. N. Shingal, J · P. N. Bhagwati, J · A. C. Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1972
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 339 words

P.N. Bhagwati, J.—This appeal by special leave is directed against an order passed by the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Bombay summarily dismissing an appeal preferred by the appellants against an order passed by the Third Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur convicting them of the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court summarily without giving any reasons but it does appear, and that is borne out by the fact that special leave has been granted by this Court that there are issues of fact which require some consideration and ii would, therefore, be desirable that the Order of summary dismissal should be set aside and the matter should be sent back to the High Court for the purpose of disposing of the appeal on merits after issuing notice to the other side. We may make it clear that it is not our view that in no case can the High Court summarily reject a criminal appeal without giving reasons, but where some arguable issues of fact or law arise, we think it would be desirable if the High Court gives reasons for summarily dismissing an appeal.

2.

We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of summary dismissal passed by the High Court and remand the case to the High Court so that the High Court may admit the appeal, issue notice to the State and after hearing the parties, dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. Since the paper bocks have already been printed in this Court, sufficient number of copies may be forwards d to the High Court in order to avoid further expense to the parties by way of preparation of the appeal paper bock in the High Court. Since the case is an old one and the appellants have been languishing in jail for an number of years, we would suggest that the High Court may dispose of the appeal at a very early date.