Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Sita Ram decision is not binding on the power to summarily dismiss an appeal under section 384 CrPC, and therefore the summary dismissal of the appeal stands.

Summary

Three accused were acquitted by a Sessions Judge for murder and related offences, but the State appealed and the Gujarat High Court convicted them. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court under section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal summarily under section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court considered whether it had the power to do so and whether the decision in Sita Ram v. State of U.P. was binding on that question. It held that the Sita Ram decision did not address the scope of section 384 and therefore was not a precedent on the matter, and that rule 15(1)(c) of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules should be read down. Consequently, the summary dismissal of the appeal was upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court can summarily dismiss an appeal filed under section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, using section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Whether rule 15(1)(c) of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules, which permits ex parte placement of such appeals, is ultra vires the Constitution and the 1970 Act.
Whether the decision in Sita Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P. is binding authority on the power to dismiss an appeal under section 384 CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 379, s. 384
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970s. 2(a)

Subjects

criminal appealsummary dismissalsection 384 CrPCSupreme Court Rulesconstitutional validityenlargement of criminal appellate jurisdictionrule 15(1)(c)murder conviction

Judgment

353

RAJPUT RUDA MAHA AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
December 5, 1979
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. S. KAILASAM AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.] B

Silpreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act,
1910-S.Z(a)-Scope-Supreme Court, if could summarily dismiss an appeal
A ~ .under section 384 Cr. P.C.

'f he c:ppellants ·who were charged with the offence of committing inurder
were acquitted by the Sessions Judge. But on appeal by the State, the High C
Court convicted and sentenced them. In their apper:l under section 2(a) of the
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, .1970,
this court, after a detailed analysis of the High Court's judgment and the evi-
den~ led in the case summarily dismissed the appeal under section 384 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

After the pronouncement of the judgment but before it was signed, the attcn- D
tion of the court was drawn to the judgment in Sita Rain v. State of U.P .
.[1979] 2 S.C.R. 1085 which, according to them, held that the Supreme Court /
had no power to sun1n1arily dismiss an app::al under section 384, Cr. P.C. in
an appeal under section 2(a) of the 1970 Act. Dismissing the appeal.

HELD : The decision in Sita Ram v. State of U.P. is no authority regard-
ing the power of the court to summarily dismiss an apeal under section 384 of E
th~ Crimin<1l Procedure Codr. In that ca·5e neither in the application for
:adducing additional grounds nor in the order of the Court directing the matter
to be placed, before the constitution bench was there any reference to the
validity of section '.';84 nor was it pleaded that the section was ullra-vire5 the
Constitution. [356E]

Therefore the observaion of the Court that it has "pondered over the issue F
in depth" would not be a precedent binding on the court. The decision is an
.authority for the proposition that rule 15 ( l )( c) of Order XXI of the Supreme
Court Rules should be read down as ind:cated in that decision. f356F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION: Criminal
I
Appeal No. 718 of
1979. G '
From the Judgment and Order dated 11-10-1979 of the Gujarat
· }' High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 110177.
A. K. Trivedi and S. S. Khanduja for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
l'AZA!. Au, J. This appeal is preferred by the thrt.e accused in
.S.essiN1s Case No. 46 of 1.976 against their conviction and sentence
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R.

A imposed upon them by the High Court under the Supreme Court
(Enlargement of Criminal Appelhte Jurisdicticn) Act, 1970.

The three appellants were tried by the Sessions Judge for commit·
ting offences punishable. under s. 302/120-B/323 /324 read with s. 34
and 109 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of one
B Karsan Kala on 19-1-1976. The !earned Sessions Judge acquitted.
all the three appellants of the charges .levelled against them. The s·a~e
of Gujarat filed an appeal against the order of Sessions Judge ')Cquit-
ting them, to the High Court of Gujarat. A division Bench of the
High Court in cr;minal Appeal No. 11()/77 allowed the appeal of ~·.J..,.
the State and reversed the order of acquittal by the Learned Sessions.
c Judge and convicted them for offences under s. 302i 120-B and. sen-
tenced them to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted for
fesser offences and sentence;! '.O varying term~ Of imprisonment.
The prosecution strongly relied on the evidence of three eye-
witnesses Rata Mala, Ganesh and Ruda. Rata Mala was an injured
D eye-witness having receives several incised injuries. The evidence of
Ruda was not accepted. . The complainant Savai Kala, the
brother of the deceased saw the latter part of the occur-
rence when the deceased was being carried away by the
accused. When Savai Kala questioned, the accused attacked~
him and he was also injured. The High Court in an elabo-
E rate judgment after thorough'y scrutinising the evidence pf the eye- .
witnesses accepted their testimony. It observed that the evidence
of the eye-witnesses Raia Mala is most reliable and trustworthy and. '
so also the evidence of Ganesh. The High Court has referred to the
circumstances under, which the order ,of acquittal could be interfered
with in the light of the var:ous decisions of this Court. The
High Co11ft taking into consideration the reasons given by the Ses-
sions Judge f,or not accepting the testimony of the eye-witnesses.
found them to be totally unacceptable. We have been taken through
the evidence of the material witnesses. We have no hesitation in
agreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that the·
reasons given by the Trial Court for acquitting the accused are totally
unacceptable. After hearing the learned counsel and exammmg
the pe'ition of appeal and after going through the relevant parts of '\ .
the judgment of the High Court and the Sessions Court. we find that
there are no sufficient grounds of interferenoe. The appeal is sum-
marily dismissed under S. 384 of the Code ,of Criminal Procedure.
H
Af:er we pronuunced our judgment dismissing the appeal summar!ly
under S. 384 of the Code of Crim;nal Procedure, but before signin.g:
R. R. ~!AHA v. GUJARAT (Fazal Ali, J.) 355

the judgment, a decision oi this Court-Sita' Ram & Ors. v. State
of V.P.(') was brouQht to our notice wherein the scope o(
the pcwer of the Courts to dismiss an appeal summarily under S. 384
of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been referred. In that case
an appeal was preferred to this Court under S. 379 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with s. 2(a) of the Supreme Court
B
(Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. The
appeal was listed for preliminary hearing under R uk 15 (1) ( c) of
O.XXI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. The appellants filed an
_application for adducing additi,onal grounds, namely, ( 1) the provi-
sions under cl. ( c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of Order XXI of the
Supreme Court Rules empowering the Court to dismiss the appeal c
summarily is ultra vires being inconsistent with the provisions of the
Supreme Court (Enlargement ,of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Act, 1970; (2) the power of the Supreme Court to frame rules under
Art. 145 of the Constitution cannot be extended to annul the rights
ctmferred under an Act of Parliament and (3) an appeal under the
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Act: 1970 cannot be dismissed summarily with.out calling for the
records ordering ootice to the State and without giving reasons. When
the petition for leave to adduce additional grounds came up before
the Court, this Court ordered : -

"The appellants have challenged the cpnstitutional validity E
of cl. ( c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 15 of O.XXI of the
Supreme Court Rules, which enables an appeal of the kind
with which we are concerned, to be placed for hearing
ex parte before the Court for admission. In that view of
the matter, we think that unless the question of the consti··
F
tutional \'alidity of the rule is decided, we cannot have a
preliminary hearing of this appeal for admission. Let the
records, therefore, be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice for 1giving such direction as he may deem fit and
pr0per."
G
The matter was placed before a Bench of five Judges by the
•, . /' Ho'n'blc the Chief Justice as the constitutional validity of cl. ( c) of
rule J 5 (1) of O.XXI of Supreme Court Rules, was challenged.
Alongwith the question of constitutional validity, two other grounds
referred to earlier were also raised. The contention of the Learned
Counsel that a right of appeal cast an obligation on the Court to H
I ••·-·----
(1) !1979] 2 S.C.R. 1085.
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 2 S.C.R.

A send for records of the case, to hear both the parties and to make a
reasoned judgment, was not accepted by the judgment of the Court.
Reasons given by the Court are as follows : -
"Counsel for the appellan: insisted that an absolute
right of appeal as he desoribed it, casts an inflexible obliga-
B tion on the court ~o send for the rec,ord of the case, to hear
both parties, and to make a reasoned Judgment. Therefore, to
scuttle the appeal by a summary hearing on a preliminary
posting absent record, ex parte and absolved froni giving
reasons is to be absolutist-a posit:on absonent with the ~ ··~
mandate of the Enlargement Act and, indeed, of the
C Constitution in Article 134(1). Counsel's ipsi dixit dill
not convince us but we have pondered over the issue in
depth, being disinclined summarily to dismiss."
Regarding the ppwer of the Court to summarily dismiss the appeal
under S. 384 of the C,0de of Criminal Procedure, the submission of
D the Learned Counsel was that the provisions of the Cede of Criminal
Procedure are not applicable to the Supreme Court which conten-
tion was not accep'.ed by the Court.
Neither in the. application f,or adducing additional grounds or in
the 0-rder of the Court directing the matter t0 be placed before the
Constitution Bench, there .was any reference to the validity of S. 384
E of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Neither was it pleaded during
the arguments that S. J84 of the Code pf Criminal Procedure is
ultra vires of the Constitution. As the question of validity of S. 384
the Code of Cthriminal Procedure wads ~either raished .nor a:guded, h~ .. ·~
discussion by e Court a1!er "pan enng p'ver t e issue m ept
F would not be a precedent binding on the Courts. The decision is an
authority for the prog'.Ysition that Rule 15 ( 1) ( c) of O.XXI of the
Supreme Court Rules should be read down as indicated in the decision.
We are satisfied for the reasons stated above that the decision is
no authority regarding the scope of S. 384 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The order of dismissal of the appeal summarily will
G stand.

P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.