Skip to content


Alijan Nanhe Pehalwan Qureshi Vs. State of Maharashtra - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Leave Petition (Cr.l) No. 1620 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC645; 1981CriLJ163; (1981)1SCC415; [1981]1SCR1194; 1981(13)LC340a(SC)
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302
AppellantAlijan Nanhe Pehalwan Qureshi
RespondentState of Maharashtra
Appellant Advocate Pramod Swarup, Adv
Respondent Advocate M.C. Bhandre and ; M.N. Shroff, Advs.
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Order dated November 13, 1979 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of 1979--
Excerpt:
.....the income-tax officer were illegal. held:(per sarkar and hidayatullah, jj.). the decision of the high court was right. per sarkar, j.-on the income-tax officer's order being revised in appeal, the default based on it and all consequential proceedings must be taken to have been superseded and fresh proceedings have to be started to realise the dues as found by the revised order. per hidayatullah, j.-in view of the terms of s. 29 of the act, where an order is passed in appeal and the amount of tax reduced, the income-tax officer must intimate to the assessee the reduced amount of tax and make a demand and give him an opportunity to pay before treating him as a defaulter. per shah, j. (dissenting)-in the absence of any provision imposing an obligation upon the income-tax officer to issue..........without a speaking order. after all in so serious a crime as murder, where so severe a sentence as life imprisonment has been inflicted by the trial court and the appeal is as of right, the high court must indicate in reasoned judgment that it has applied its mind to the material questions of fact and law. a judgment may be brief but not a blank, especially in a situation such as this. for this reason we should have straightway set aside the judgment of the high court and sent it back for fresh hearing, but under article 136 where justice is the paramount consideration we wanted to reduce the delay in the proceedings since there is a sentence of life imprisonment on the petitioner so we directed that the original record be sent for so that counsel on both sides may have the opportunity.....
Judgment:
ORDER

V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.

1. We were not happy at the disposal by the High Court of a case under Section 302, I.P.C. without a speaking order. After all in so serious a crime as murder, where so severe a sentence as life imprisonment has been inflicted by the trial court and the appeal is as of right, the High Court must indicate in reasoned judgment that it has applied its mind to the material questions of fact and law. A judgment may be brief but not a blank, especially in a situation such as this. For this reason we should have straightway set aside the judgment of the High Court and sent it back for fresh hearing, but under Article 136 where justice is the paramount consideration we wanted to reduce the delay in the proceedings since there is a sentence of life imprisonment on the petitioner so we directed that the original record be sent for so that counsel on both sides may have the opportunity to peruse the entire case records and make submissions to us as if we were hearing the appeal in the regular course. Counsel have had that facility and have made submissions after perusal of the materials. After a brief hearing counsel for the petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the trial court's judgment was vitiated by any flaw in appreciation of evidence or assessment of probabilities. We, therefore, dismiss the Special Leave Petition after satisfying ourselves that natural justice has had its full play. Dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //