Holding

The High Court’s dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution on the basis of the lawyers’ strike and its commentary on the strike were improper; the appeal must be restored and heard on its merits.

Summary

The appellants, Mangilal and others, were convicted under IPC sections 147 and 307 and appealed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. While the appeal was listed, the counsel were absent because lawyers were on strike, leading the High Court to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and to comment on the reasons for the strike, calling the advocates’ conduct unruly. The appellants filed an application under CrPC section 482 for restoration of the appeal, which was also dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into extraneous matters, expressing personal prejudice, and dismissing the appeal without first ascertaining any justification for the lawyers’ absence. It emphasized the need for judicial restraint and a dispassionate mind. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed that the appeal be restored and heard on its merits.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court may dismiss a criminal appeal for want of prosecution solely on the ground of lawyers’ strike and comment on the reasons for the strike.
Whether such dismissal violates the principles of judicial restraint and the requirement of impartial adjudication.
Whether the appeal should be restored and heard on merits.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 386, s. 482

Subjects

criminal appeallawyers' strikejudicial restraintwant of prosecutionSection 386 CrPCSection 482 CrPCappellate jurisdictionprejudicerestoration of appeal

Judgment

A MANGILAL AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF M.P.

APRIL 27, 1994

B [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CT. ANDS. MOHAN, J.)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 386-Appeal against con- •
viction-Hearing of-Lawyers' strike during-Absence of /awye,-JJismissal of
appeal for non-prosecution-Validity of-High Court's observation as :o
C reasons for strike and comments on lawyers' conduct in relation to strike-Jus-
tification of

Judicial process-Decision making-Judgr-Need to avaid personal
prejudice.

D During the hearing or appellants' appeal, against conviction under
Sections 147 and 307 or the Indian Penal Code, their counsel were absent
due to Lawyers' strike. The High Court dismissed the appeal for want
or prosecution observing that there was no _justification in the lawyers'
decisions to go on strike and the decision to strike obstructed the
E judicial process. The appellant's application for restoration orthe appeal
and to decide the same on merits was also dismissed by High Court.

In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalr or the
appellants that the High Court should have merely enquired into
F justification or Lawyers' absence and it was not justified in examining
the question as to what prompted the Advocates to go on strike and in l,
commenting upon their conduct in relation to the strike.

Setting aside the High Court's order and directing the restoration
or appeal to be heard on mtrits, this Court
G
HELD : 1. The High Court has shown a lack or judicial restraint
in adverting to and influenced by matters which were extraneous. It
should not have embarked on the reason for the strike which was not
the issue before it. The learned Judge should not have let out his bile
H against the advocates who are free to hold any opinion as to the lapses
774
\>fANGILAL v. STATEOFM.P. [MOHAN.JJ 775

committed by the then Chier Justice. Holding of such opinions can hardly A
be characterised as an unruly attitude on the part of the advocates. Such
holding or opinion, nor again, would either obstruct or disturb the
judiciary. [777-H, 778-A-B, H, 779-A]

Ramnaresh Yadav v. State of Bihm; A.l.R. (1987) S.C. 1500, cited.
B
2. A Judge must be of sterner stuff. His mental equipoise must
always remain firm and undeflected. It is essential a judge should not
allow his personal prejudice to go into the decision,making. [778-B-C]

R v. Bath Compensation Authority, (1925) 1 K.B. 685, referred to. C

3. A closed mind is antithetical to fair hearing. Prejudice tends to
corrupt the ability to exercise independent judgment. It has a tendency
to intrude upon a free mind and may influence the outcome. [778-D]

Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia v. Franklin S. D
Pollak, 343 US 451, 96 Law Ed. 1068, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal
No. 298 ol 1994.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.93 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 117 of 1986.

S.K. Gambhir and Yivek Gambhir for the Appellants.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F
)
MOHAN, J. Leave granted.

The appellants were tried before the learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No. 30· of 1985 for
offences under Sections 147 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. On trial, G
they were convicted and sentenced as per the judgment datod 23.1.86 as
under :-

Rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 147 of the
Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500 H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A each, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two months
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Both sentences were directed
to run concurrently. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 1986
in the High Court. On 27.8.93 the appeal came up before D.M. Dharmad-
hikari, J. It was adjourned since the lawyers at Jabalpur were o!l strike on
B that day. Thereafter the matter was listed on 11.10.93. On that day also the
lawyers were on strike. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the im-
pugned judgment for want of prosecution. On 20.11.93 an application r.
under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure was preferred for n;stora-
tion of the appeal and to decide the same on merits. By an order dated
C 26.11.93 the said application was dismissed. Hence, the special leave peti-
tion.

The learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the court
should not have gone into the question as to what prompted the advocates
D to go on strike. On the contrary, it should have have merely enquired into
the facts whether there is justification for the absence of the appellant's
counsel when the appeal was taken up for hearing. It was also not correct
to have commented upon the conduct of the advocate in relation to the
stirke.

E
It is unfortunate that Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 1986 came lo be
dismissed for want of prosecution. While dismissing the appeal on 11.10.93
the High Court observed as under :-

"No Advocate nor their Association has apprised this Court
F about the grievances 9f the Advocates and why they do not wish
to appear in this Court. But in this connection news have been
punblished in the newspapers from time to time. It appears from
the news published in the local newspapers that on 13.8.93 and
14.8.93 representatives of the Advocates met the Hon'ble Chief
G Justice of India and the Minister for Law and submitted a
memorandum and requested for transfer of the Chief Justice of
this High Court to some other High Court. After that, after passing
a resolution on 18.8.93 for the same transfer issue decision to go
on strike for a week was taken. Thereafter, on 23.8.93 in a meeting
H of Bar Association an opinion was expressed that Justice Guiab
MANGILAL v. STATE OF M.P. [MOHAN. J] 777

.. >-- Gupta of Ibis High Court is the only Justice who has got support A
from the Chief Justice as such he is also responsible for the acts
of the Chief Justice. It appears that on this account only the Bar
Association has demanded that this Court should also be trans-
ferred. It is learnt that a Writ Petition has been preferred seeking
transfer of the Chief Justice and it is under consideration. The
B
learned Justices of the Supreme Court have urged the Advocates
of this Court that during the pendency of the said Writ Petition
they should not resort to any such agitation and withdraw the
agitation that is being continued by them. News items published
in the newspapers indicate that the strike has been called off on
13.9.93 and a decision has been taken to boycott appearance before
c
the Chief Justice and this Court. As regards the question of
transfer of the Chief Justice, it is under the consideration of
Supreme Court and hence this Court need not say anything in this
context. As far as this Court is concerned, the Advocates hold that
this Court has got the support of the Chief Justice and as such this D
Court also is responsible for the lapses committed by the Chief
Justice and this can never be accepted. This decision of the
Advocates speaks of their unruly attitude and for this the judicial
process would not be allowed to be obstructed or disturbed. Since
according to this Court there is no justification in the decision of E
• Advocates, their absence is unpardonable. In such exigency as per
section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code this Court without
hearing the parties is competent to decide the appeal on merits.
But pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramnaresh
Yadav v. State of Bihar, A.LR. (1987) S.C. 1500 it has been held F
that ordinarily in criminal appeals without hearing the parties the
appeal should not be decided on merits and if the conduct of the
Advocates is such that it causes hindrance in the judicial
process then the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecu-
tion and lesson should be taught. Following the observations of the
Supreme Court the appeal deserves to be dismissed for want to G
prosecution."

We are afraid that the High Court has shown a lack of judicial
restraint and decreed in adverting to and influenced by matters which were
H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A extraneous. The judicial proceedings in this Court relating to the ad-
•
ministrating the High Court during that period would indicate that this
went severly wrong in the High Court's administration in certain matters.
The fact is that the advocates were on strike justifiably or otherwise. Why
should the court embark on the reason for the strike which was not the
B issue before it? Therefore, all the observations which we have quoted above
were totally unwarranted. A Judge must be of sterner stuff. His mental
equipoise must always remain firm and undeflected. It is essential a judge
should not allow his personal prejudice to go into the decision-making as
was remarked by Scrutton, L.J. in R v. Bath Compenstation Authority,
C (1925) 1 KB 685 at 719:

"The object ...... is not merely that the scales be held even; it is
also that they may not appear to be inclined."

A closed mind is antithetical to fair heraing. Prejudice tends to
D corrupt the ability to exercise independent jugdment. It has a tendency to
intrude upon a free mind and may influence the outcome. At this stage, it
is worthwhile to recall the words of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Public
Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia v. Franklin S. Pollak, 343
US 451 at 465-466 (96 Law. Ed. 1068 at 1079):
E •
"The judicial process demands that a judge move within the
framework of relevant legal rules and the convenanted modes of
thought for ascertaining them. He must think dispassionately and
submerge private feeling on every aspect of a case. There is a good
deal of shallow talk that the judicial robe does not change the man
F within it. It does. The fact is that on the whole judges do lay aside
private views in discharging their judicial functions. This is achieved
through training, professional habits, selfdiscipline and that fortunate
alchemy by which men are loyal to the obligation with which they
are ent1Usted." (Emphasis supplied)
G
Should the judge take congnizance of the newspaper report and the
reasons which prompted the advocates to seek transfer of the then Chief
Justice? The learned Judge should not have let out his bile against the
advocates who are free to hold any opinion as to the lapses committed by
H the then Chief Justice. Holding of such opinions can hardly be charac-
MANGILAL v. STATE OF M.P. [MOHAN, J] 779
,. terised as an unruly attitude on the part of the advocates. Such holding of A
•
opinions, nor again, would either obstruct or disturb the judiciary. If the
learned Judge had the slightest compunction he should have rescused
himself.

Therefore, we set aside the same and direct the appeal be restored
to file and heard on merits. B

Appeal restored.

)