Jeewan & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 551/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 551/2000)
Petitioner: Jeewan & Ors.
Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 551/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 551/2000)
Judges: S. SAGHIR AHMAD & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 13, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Sections 374, 385 – Appeal against conviction – Judgment. High Court affirming conviction in absence of convicts or their Coun-sel – No amicus appointed – No mention of facts or evidence on which conviction based. Held that it is no judgment. Orders set-aside and matter remanded for fresh decision.
(Paras 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted .
2. On 18.2.2000, the following order was passed :
“Issue notice on the S.L.P. as well as on the bail applica-tion returnable within three weeks.
The notice shall indicate as to why the judgment of the High Court not be set aside and the case remanded to the High Court.”
3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The judgment passed by the High Court does not meet the basic requirements of a judgment as understood in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in criminal jurisprudence. Though it is a judgment of affirmation, it still cannot be treated to be a judgment as the High Court does not even mention the facts or the evidence against the appellants on the basis of which their conviction was sustained. Since nobody was present on behalf of the appellants, we feel that they did not get a fair trial in the High Court. If learned Counsel for the appellants was not present, the High Court could have appointed an amicus.
4. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 1.12.1999, passed by the High Court, is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for being disposed of on merits in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above . It will be open to the appellants to apply for a fresh bail in the High Court. But in the meantime, the appellants who were on bail during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court shall be released on interim bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the trial court.
1. Leave granted .
2. On 18.2.2000, the following order was passed :
“Issue notice on the S.L.P. as well as on the bail applica-tion returnable within three weeks.
The notice shall indicate as to why the judgment of the High Court not be set aside and the case remanded to the High Court.”
3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The judgment passed by the High Court does not meet the basic requirements of a judgment as understood in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in criminal jurisprudence. Though it is a judgment of affirmation, it still cannot be treated to be a judgment as the High Court does not even mention the facts or the evidence against the appellants on the basis of which their conviction was sustained. Since nobody was present on behalf of the appellants, we feel that they did not get a fair trial in the High Court. If learned Counsel for the appellants was not present, the High Court could have appointed an amicus.
4. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 1.12.1999, passed by the High Court, is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for being disposed of on merits in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above . It will be open to the appellants to apply for a fresh bail in the High Court. But in the meantime, the appellants who were on bail during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court shall be released on interim bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the trial court.
