1996 (7) TMI 562 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.
2. Interpretation of Sections 384-386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Conflict between the judgments in Ram Naresh Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Shyam Deo Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar.

Summary:

1. Dismissal for Non-Prosecution:
The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the High Court at Allahabad was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-appellants for non-prosecution. The High Court had dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case, citing the absence of the appellants and their pleader.

2. Interpretation of Sections 384-386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly Sections 384-386, were examined. Section 384 allows for the summary dismissal of appeals if there is no sufficient ground for interfering. Section 385 mandates that if an appeal is not dismissed summarily, notice must be given to the parties, and the record of the case must be sent for and heard. Section 386 requires the Appellate Court to peruse the record and hear the parties before dismissing the appeal.

3. Conflict Between Judgments:
The Supreme Court noted a conflict between the judgments in Ram Naresh Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Shyam Deo Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar. In Shyam Deo's case, it was held that the Appellate Court must peruse the record and dispose of the appeal on merits, even if the appellant or his pleader is absent. In contrast, Ram Naresh Yadav's case suggested that the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution if the appellant or his counsel is absent, but it must be disposed of on merits only after hearing the appellant or appointing another counsel at State cost.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the view taken in Shyam Deo's case is sound, except for a minor clarification. The Court held that the plain language of Sections 385-386 does not contemplate dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution simplicitor. The law expects the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits after perusal and scrutiny of the record. The High Court erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without examining the merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits in light of this judgment. The appeal was allowed accordingly.