Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, May 04, 2003

About Us
Contact Us
National
News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

National Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

SC anguish at cursory disposal of criminal cases

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI May 3. The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over the growing tendency among High Courts to dispose of criminal cases in a cursory manner without going into the vexed questions of law and the facts involved.

A Bench comprising Justice M.B. Shah and Justice Arun Kumar said ``may be, this approach is gaining ground on account of the huge pendency of cases. But such summary dismissal is no solution to the problem of arrears of cases in courts''.

Expressing anguish, the Bench said disposal of criminal appeals, where the High Court is the first court of appeal, in such a manner, results in denial of right of appeal to the parties.

So long as the statute provides a right of appeal, the court will be failing in its duty if the appeal is disposed of in such a casual and cavalier manner, as the Patna High Court has done in the present case''.

In this case, a mob attacked a man and his son in June 1982 and the son died on the spot. Seven persons were arrayed as accused and they were acquitted by the sessions court.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there were no merits. With the Bihar Government deciding not to prefer an appeal in the apex court, the victim's father, approached the apex court.

On behalf of the accused-respondents, the appeal was strongly resisted on the ground that the father had no locus standi to file an appeal when the State had decided against it.

Rejecting this contention, the bench said the exercise of the power of the Supreme Court ``is not circumscribed by any limitation as to who may invoke it.

Where a judgment of acquittal by the High Court has led to a serious miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court cannot refrain from doing its duty and abstain from interfering on the ground that a private party and not the State has invoked the Court's jurisdiction''.

Holding that the case had not been decided properly, the bench remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh disposal.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu