1972 (1) TMI 112 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants were given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before their acquittal was converted into a conviction.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by special leave where the appellants, accused of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, were initially acquitted by the Munsif-Magistrate but later convicted by the High Court. The main issue was whether the appellants were provided with a fair opportunity to be heard before the conversion of their acquittal into a conviction.

The appellants were not heard during the appeal process as their names and their advocate's name were not included in the cause list on multiple occasions. Despite notice being issued to the appellants, the cause list's failure to mention their names or their advocate's name led to a lack of actual notice to them. The advocate's absence from the cause list hindered their ability to be informed about the hearing dates, resulting in a denial of a fair opportunity to be heard.

The appellants, upon learning about their conviction through village rumors, filed an application stating their prejudice due to the absence of their names in the cause list. The advocate's Vakalatnama filing was not reflected in the cause list, raising doubts about whether proper notice was given. The court failed to investigate this matter thoroughly, leading to a potential oversight in notifying the appellants about the hearing dates.

The Supreme Court concluded that a fair hearing was not conducted during the appeal process, primarily due to the appellants not being adequately informed about the hearing dates. As a result, the order of conviction and sentence by the High Court was set aside. The case was directed to be reheard by the High Court after ensuring necessary notice to all parties involved.

In summary, the judgment focused on the fundamental principle of providing a fair opportunity to be heard in legal proceedings, emphasizing the importance of proper notice to parties and their advocates. The failure to include the names of the appellants and their advocate in the cause list resulted in a lack of actual notice, leading to a violation of the appellants' right to be heard.