Holding

A High Court may dismiss a first appeal summarily only when the evidence is so clear that no case for consideration exists; otherwise it must give brief reasons, and a summary dismissal without reasons is improper in serious cases.

Summary

The appellant Dagadu was convicted of murder under IPC s.302 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Bombay High Court dismissed his first appeal summarily, using only the word "rejected" and providing no reasons. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's power under CrPC s.384 (formerly s.421) to dismiss appeals summarily and held that in serious cases such as murder, a summary dismissal is permissible only when the evidence is overwhelmingly clear; otherwise the High Court must consider the appeal on its merits and give brief reasons. The Court noted that a summary order without reasons deprives the Supreme Court of the ability to assess whether further examination is needed and creates undue hardship for the accused. Relying on precedents (Govinda Kadam v. State of Maharashtra and Sita Ram v. State of U.P.), the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, directed the appeal to be re‑admitted, and ordered it be heard within three months.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court may summarily dismiss a first criminal appeal under CrPC s.384 without giving reasons, especially in serious offences like murder.
Whether such a summary dismissal violates any statutory provision.
Whether the Supreme Court can set aside a summary dismissal lacking reasons.

Legislation cited

Subjects

summary dismissalcriminal appealCrPC s.384murderappellate jurisdictionspeaking orderreasons for dismissal

Judgment

288
A

.DAGADU
B v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

. ·-··-·-~-··--- March 24, 1981

c (S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, BAHARUL ISLAM AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.J

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, section 384 (section 421 of 1898 Code) ;.fl
-Powers of the High Court to reject appeal summarily-The lfigh Court should ·
ordinarily pass a 'speaking order'.

Although under section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I 898 (which
D is sectiofl 384 of the Code of. Criminal Prccedure, 1973) the High Court has
the undoubted power to summarily dismiss a first appeal against conviction of
an accused yet in very serious cases like those under section 302 Indian Penal
Code, or other cases where death or life irnprisoninent can be awarded, the
High Court should consider the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it
summarily, unless the evidence is so cle3r and cogent, reliable and creditworthy
- that on the face of it no case for the barest consideration is made out. Even
E if the High Court chooses to dismiss the appeal summarily some brief reasons
should be giVen so as to_ enable the Supreme Court to judge whether or not
' the case requires any further examination. If no reasons are ·given then the ·
task of the Supreme Court becomes onerous in as much as the Judges have
to perform the function of the High Court itself by reappraising the entire
tv~c"<rce J{!l·tt:rg in fericus haras~rrcnt and expense to the accused.
[289 C, 290 CJ
F
Govinda Kadtuji Kadam and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, [1970] 1SCC469
and Sita Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P., [1979] 2 SCR 1085, followed •.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 313
of 1974. r
G Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
23-7-1973 .of the Bombay.High Court in Cr!. Appeal No. 759/73.

Harjinder Singh for the Appellant.

H O.P. Rana.and R .. N. Podar for the Respondent.
DAGADU v. MAHARASHTRA (Fazal Ali, J.) 289

The Order of the Court was delivered by A
FAZAL ALI, J. In this appeal by special leave the appellant
has been convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to imprisonment for life. After having gone through the
judgment of the Sessions Judge and the grounds taken by the appel-
lant in his appeal by ,special leave we are satisfied that this case
does raise some arguable points which merit serious consideration by
B
the High Court. We would like to point out that although under
section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which is
section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the High
Court has the undoubted power to summarily dismiss a first appeal
against conviction of an accused yet in very serious cases like those
under section 302 Indian Penal Code, or other cases where death or
c
life imprisonment can be awarded, the High Court should consider
the appeal on men ts instead of dismissing it summarily, unless the
evidence is so clear and cogent, reliable and creditworthy that on
the face of it no case for the barest consideration is made out.
This Court in Govinda Kridtuji Kadom and Ors. v. State of Maha-
ras~trc;(') while laying down the guidelines for dismissing an appeal
D
summarily observed as follows :

"The summar.y decision is accordingly a judicial deci-
sion which vitally affects the convicted appellant and in
a fit case it is also open to challenge on appeal in this
Court. An order summarily dismissing an appeal by the E
word 'rejected', as is tl'e case before us, though not vio-
lative of any statutory provision removes nearly every
opportunity for detection of errors in the order. Such an
order does not speak and is inscrutable giving no indication
,of the reasoning underlying it. It may at times embarrass
this Court when the order appealed against prima fade F
gives rise to arguable points which this Court is required
to consider without having the benefit of the views of the
High Court on those points. In our opinion, therefore,
when an appeal in the High Court raises a serious and
substantial point which is prima facie arguable it is
improper for that Court to dismiss it summarily without G
giving some indicat_ion of its view on the points raised."

To the same effect is the later decision of this Court in Sita Ram and
Ors. v. State of U.P.(2) where this Court reiterated as follows :
H
(I) (1971] I S.C.C. 469.
(2) (1979] 2 S.C.R. 1085.
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 3 S.C.R.

A "The order summarily dismissing an appeal by the
High Court by the word 'rejected' is not violative of any
statutory provision. While holding that a summary rejec-
tion of the appeal by the High Court is not violative of
any statutory provision, this Court pointed out that it is
desirable that reasons are recorded by the High Court
B when prima facie arguable issues have been raised as that
would enable the Supreme Court to appreciate the reasons
• for rejection of the appeal by the High Court."

We, therefore, hold that even if the High Court chooses to
dismiss the appeal summarily some brief reasons should be given
c so as to enable this Court to judge whether or not the case requires
any further examination. If no reasons are given then the task
of this Court becomes onerous inasmuch as \~e have to perform the
function of the High Court itself by reappraising the entire evidence
resulting in serious harassment and expense to the accused. In
these circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court dis-
D missing the appeal and direct the High Court to re-admit the appeal
and hear it according to Jaw within three months from today, as
far as practicable. As the case is a very old one the High Court
should give top priority to the case. The, entire record and the
paper books which have been prepared in thls Court should be sent
to the High Court which has only to hear the counsel for the parties
E and decide the case.

V.D.K. Appeal allowed.