9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 118 - SC - Indian LawsAbuse of bail - Appointment of Amicus Curiae - Held that - A perusal of the impugned order makes it abundantly evident that the High Court has considered the case in all its complexities. The argument that the High Court was duty-bound to appoint an amicus curiae is not legally sound. Panduranga 2015 (8) TMI 1139 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA correctly considers Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam 2011 (2) TMI 514 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA as per incuriam, inasmuch as the latter mandates the appointment of an amicus curiae and is thus irreconcilable with Bani Singh 1996 (7) TMI 562 - SUPREME COURT . In the case in hand the High Court has manifestly discussed the evidence that have been led, and finding it of probative value, has come to the conclusion that the conviction is above Appellate reproach correction and interference. In view of the analysis of the law the contention raised before us that it was essential for the High Court to have appointed an amicus curiae is wholly untenable. The High Court has duly undertaken the curial responsibility that fastens upon the Appellate Court, and cannot be faulted on the approach adopted by it. Appellant granted opportunity to argue the Appeal on its merits.
Issues Involved:
1. Abuse of the statutory right to appeal by convicts. 2. Legal provisions regarding the dismissal of appeals. 3. Application of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 4. Judicial precedents on the dismissal of appeals. 5. Role and responsibility of appellate courts in ensuring justice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Abuse of the Statutory Right to Appeal by Convicts: The judgment highlights the rampant manipulation and misuse of the statutory right to appeal by convicts who obtain bail or exemption from surrender and then abscond. This practice is seen as a gross abuse of the judicial process and a threat to the administration of justice. The court emphasizes the need to dismiss such appeals to prevent the annihilation of justice. 2. Legal Provisions Regarding the Dismissal of Appeals: The relevant legal provisions are found in Chapter XXIX of the CrPC. Section 372 states that an appeal is not a right unless granted by statute. Section 374(2) allows a person convicted by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge to appeal to the High Court. Section 378 requires express leave for appeals against acquittal. Section 384 allows for summary dismissal of appeals, while Section 385 mandates the issuance of notice to the appellant. Section 386 requires the appellate court to peruse the records and hear the appellant or his pleader before dismissing an appeal. The court emphasizes that these provisions do not preclude the dismissal of appeals where the appellant wilfully absconds. 3. Application of Section 482 of the CrPC: Section 482 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make necessary orders to give effect to any order under the CrPC, prevent abuse of the process, or secure the ends of justice. The court underscores that Section 482 should be invoked to combat the malpractice of filing appeals to avoid sentences. This inherent power allows the High Court to dismiss appeals where the appellant shows negligible interest in prosecuting the appeal after obtaining bail or exemption from surrender. 4. Judicial Precedents on the Dismissal of Appeals: The judgment discusses several precedents, including: - Shyam Deo Pandey v. State of Bihar: The High Court must have the records of the lower court to comply with the condition of 'perusal.' - Kishan Singh v. State of U.P.: The appellate court can require the appellant to surrender and may dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to obey. - Bani Singh v. State of U.P.: The appellate court can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgment of the trial court, even if the appellant or his lawyer is absent. - Dharam Pal v. State of U.P.: The High Court can decide an appeal on merits even if the appellant is not served with notice, provided the judgment is well-merited. 5. Role and Responsibility of Appellate Courts in Ensuring Justice: The court emphasizes that appellate courts must ensure that convicts do not circumvent their sentences by absconding after obtaining bail. It is the duty of the judge to ensure that justice is served, not only for the convict but also for the victims and society. The court suggests that appellate courts should proceed against the sureties of the convict to secure his presence and, if necessary, dismiss the appeal if the convict cannot be located. Conclusion: The judgment concludes that the High Court correctly considered the case in all its complexities and was not legally bound to appoint an amicus curiae. The court grants leave for the appellant to argue the appeal on its merits, rejecting the request for remand. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC are crucial in ensuring that justice is not thwarted by convicts who misuse the appellate process.
|
