STATE OF KARNATAKAversusSURENDER KOTIANKAR

                                                                                349



                              STAiE OF KARNATAKA                                       A

                                               v.

                              SURENDER KOTIANKAR

                                     August 13. 1984
                                                                                       ll
               [0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND RANGANATH MISRA JJ .] .

          Constitution of India, ·Article 136-Discretion ; of the Court ·10 grant
    Special Leave to Appeal fn criminal proceedings-Whether in the absence of
    ,.-~ecessary pdpers giving full facts, the Co.1rt m:1y refuse leave . '            C

          Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XXT.....:...Special Leave Petitions in
    Crim!nal proceedings must contain ned;Ssar~ papers giving full f~cts.

           lo the petitions for special leave to appeal in criminal proceedings,
    t~e petitioner  annexed only a copy of the judgment _or the High court but         D
    di(foot file any papers, such as, copies of the charge-sheets or the judgment
    of the Trial Court which could give full picture of the facts.

           Dismissing the petitions,


                                                                   .
            .HELD.: 1. The Supreme Court in the exercise or its jurisdiction under
     Article 136 may not propose to proceed Further in the matter in which the
                                                                               .
                                                                                       E

     petitioner has not chosen to. file any papers in the court apart from the
    judgment or the High Court. Therefore, in the instant case, the Court
     will not be justified in issuing a show cause notice to the respondent when
    no attempt has been made to place :\II the facts beFore it by filing tho
    necessary documents. [3 50C- D]                                                    F

           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURiSDJCTION                    Special Leave Petition
    \Cr!.) Nos. 1288 to 1301of1983 .
•
         From the Judgment and Order dated 31st January, 1983 of                       G
    the Karnataka High Court in Cr!. Appeal Nos. 461 to 474 of 1981.

           K.L. Sharma and M. Veerappa for the petitioner.

           The Order of the Court mas delivered by                                     H
    350                    SUPUlll! COURT REPORTS             (1985] l s.c.a.·

A            CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. On pleas of guilty, the respondent
      was convicted of several charges under Sections 408 and 477 A and
      sentenced in each case, by, the Trial Magistrate, to suffer imprison-
      ment till the rising of the Court and a fine of either Rs. 50 or Rs.
      100. The State prefered appeals to the High Court for enhance·
     ment of the sentences. The appeals were dismissed on the ground
      that the accused was a young man who had already been pumshed
B
     sufficiently by the loss of his job and also in view of the circumstance
     that more than ten years had elapsed since the date of offence. We
     are prima facie satisfied that the sentences are inadequate and that
                                                                                 •
     the lenient senten'ces are the result of misplaced sympatby. We do
     not however propose to proceed further in the matter in the exercise
     of our jurisdiction under Article 136 as the State of Karnataka who
c   is the petitioner before us bas not chosen to file any papers before         •
    us apart from the judgment of the High Court. The least that the
    petitioner could have done to give us a full picture of the facts was
    to file copies of the charge·sheets and the charges and copies of the
    judgments of the Trial Court in the different cases. We do not
    think that we will be justified in issuing a show-cause notice to the
D   respondents when no attempt has been made to place all the facts
    before us by filing the necessary documents. Apparently there is
    no purposefulness in the filing of these petitions. They are accor·
    dingly dismissed.                                                            -
    M.L.A.                                             Petitions dismissed.




                                                                                     .