Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"On receiving the petition and copy under Section 419 or Section 420, the appellate Court shall peruse the same, and, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, it may dismiss the appeal summarily."

It is also clear from this section that every convicted person must file a separate appeal, because Section 421(1) provides that the Court may dismiss the appeal summarily if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering after perusing the appeal petition. Section 421 did not provide for the case of a petition showing sufficient grounds for interfering in the case of certain accused and not showing sufficient grounds for interfering in the case of another accused. Section 421 did not provide that an appeal could be dismissed summarily as regards one accused and proceeded with as against another accused person. That Section 421 does not contemplate an order of partial summary dismissal is the law declared by the Supreme Court in Chela Jadav v. State of Bombay, ATR 1960 SC 748. It is true that their Lordships of the Supreme Court were not dealing with the case of an appeal filed by several accused persons but were dealing with the case of an appeal filed by only one person. But their Lordships declared the law in general terms. After referring to the provisions in Chapter XXXI of the Criminal Procedure Code and in particular Section 421 and Section 422 Cri. Pro. Code, their Lordships observed as follows:--

26. Moreover, the judgment, with very great and profound respect and in my very humble opinion, is inconsistent with the declaration of law made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR I960 SC 748. Their Lordships have clearly laid down that Section 421, Criminal procedure Code, does not contemplate an order of partial summary dismissal in a criminal appeal. In the instant case Cri. Appeal No. 395 of 1961 is for admission. This is an appeal by five accused persons and if an order is passed in Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1961 that Criminal Appeal No. 395/61 is summarily dismissed in regard to one of the accused persons and admitted, to use this word for convenience with regard to other accused persons, it would amount to an invalid order according to she law declared by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. With reference to these observations, the learned Judges of the Division Court of three judges observed as follows:

"The provisions of Section 421 do not contemplate a partial summary dismissal of an appeal."

They also approved the observations of the Privy Council that the terms of Section 421, Cri Pro. Code exclude the possibility of a partial summary dismissal e.g. in so far as the conviction is appealed against. The decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, therefore amounts to this that Section 421, Cri. Pro. Code excludes the possibility of a partial summary dismissal and that one instance of that rule is that Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code excludes the possibility of a partial summary dismissal so far as the conviction is appealed against. While deciding the case before their Lordships, their Lordships decided the case before them, which related to an order of partial summary dismissal so far as the conviction of one accused was concerned. They decided that such an order was invalid. Their Lordships decided that such an order was invalid because Section 421, Criminal Pro. Code, excludes the possibility of any type of partial summary dismissal, an instance of which was the case before their Lordships. With very very great respect, therefore, in view of Article 141 of the Constitution, the clear declaration of law made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court is binding even it the facts of the case decided by their Lordships are distinguishable from the facts in another case. It is true that this is a matter of pure procedure. Their Lordships of the Division Court consisting of three Judges also observed that the rule framed by the Bombay High Court since 1900 has not been challenged. But the real question is whether the provisions of Chapter XXXI of the Criminal Procedure Code ex-dude the possibility of a joint appeal. If they do, then the rule framed by tbe Bombay High Court would be invalid even if it be 100 years old. In fact, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR 1960 SC 748, have declared a hundred year old practice of the Bombay High Court to be invalid. As regards convenience, there is nothing to choose between the either view.