Supreme Court of India
ALIJAN NANHE PEHALWAN QURESHI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA on 10 November 1980
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
A
ALIJAN NANHE PEHALWAN QURESHI v.
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA
November 10, 1980
B [V. R. KRISHNA IYER & A. D. KOSHAL, JJ]
Procedure-High Court's judgment-In cases where severe 5entl'11ce had been inflicted by the trial court, High Court must give a reasoned judgment.
In so serious a crime as murder where so severe a sentence as life c imprisonment has been inflicted by the trial court and the appeai is as of right, the High Court must indicate in a reasoned judgment that it has applied its mind to the material questions of fact and Jaw. A judgment may be brief but not a blank especially in a situation such as this. [1194 F-G]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : D (Crl.) No. 1620 of l.980.
Special Leave Petition
From the Judgment and Order dated 13-11-1979 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No 1310 of 1979.
Pramod Swarup for the Petitioner.
E M. C. Bhandare and M. N. Shroff for the Respondenr. The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA lyER J.-We were not happy at the disposal by the • High Court of a case under s. 302 I.P.C. without a speaking order. F 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 ap· peal is· as of right, the High Court must indicate in a reasoned judg-ment 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 G situation such as this. For this reason we should have straightaway set aside the judgment of the High Court and sent .it back for fresh hearing, but under Artide 136 where justice is the paramount consi-deration we wanted to reduce the delay in the proceedings since there is a sentence of life imprisonment on the petitioner so we directed H that the original record be sent for so that counsel on both sides may l.1!9JS
(Krishna Iyer, !.)
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 vitrated by any flaw in appreciation of evidence or assessment of probabilities. We, therefore, dismiss the Special Leave Petition after satisfying ourselves that natural just.ice has had its full play. Dismissed.
B
P.B.R.
Petition dismissed .
•