Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Cited by 9 judgments in this corpus
- HARJINDER SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. · 2025 INSC 634
- Gurmail Singh vs State Election Commissioner And Ors · 2024:PHHC:135791
- M/S. Jagati Publication Ltd. vs Enforcement Directorate · 2021 SCC OnLine TS 3293
- SHRIDHAR NAMDEO LAWAND v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA · 2013 INSC 511
- SANKARAN MOITRA v. SADHNA DAS AND ANR. · 2006 INSC 172
- JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. · 2003 INSC 222
- BALBIR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. · 1999 INSC 487
- A.A. Mulla And Others vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr · (1996) 11 SCC 606
- Manikandan vs Pandian And Ors. · 1989 Supp (2) SCC 648
These judgments mention this one. Whether each followed, distinguished or doubted it is not recorded here — read them before relying on any of it.
Leave granted.
Heard both sides.
ORDER
The main grievance of the appellant is that his counsel was
absent and not heard any one on his behalf by the High Court E
when his appeal was disposed of finally on 19th August, 2008.
The impugned order also shows that none appeared for the
appellant whereas the State was represented by the Deputy
Advocate General.
The appellant-accused has filed Criminal appeal No. 1440-
SB of 2001 before the High Court against the conviction and
sentence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act imposed by the Special Court, Hoshiarpur. The
Special Court senten6ed him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment G
and imposed a fine a Rs. 1 lakh. Though the High Court has
considered the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal,
considering the fact that the appellant-accused was behind the
bar and could not make alternative arrangement and the Court
has also not arranged ~a counsel at the State expense and in H
A view of sentence, i.e. 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a
fine of Rs. 1 lakh, we intend to give one more opportunity to
the appellant-accused to put forth his case through a lawyer in
the High Court.
B It is usef\,11 to refer a three Judge Bench decision of this
Court in Bani Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP. , (1996) 4 SCC
720. The question that was posed before the three Judge
Bench was that where the accused-appellant is represented
by a pleader and latter fails to app;.;ar when the appeal is called
on for hearing, is the appellate Court empowered to dispose
C of the appeal after perusing the recqrd on its own or, must it
adjourn the appeal to a future date and intimate the accused
to be present on the next date of hearing? After finding
difference of opinion in Shyam Deo Pandey vs. State of Bihar,
(1971) 1 SCC 855 and Ram Naresh Yadav vs. State of Bihar,
D AIR 1987 SC 1500, the matter was referred to a large Bench.
The following conclusions emerge from the said decision is :
(i) The plain language of Sections 385-386
does not contemplate dismissal of the
appeal for non-prosecution simplicitor. On
the contrary, the Code envisages disposal
of the appeal on merits after perusal and
scrutiny of the record.
(ii) Even in the absence of lawyer, the Court is
. competent to dispose of the appeal but only
on perusing the record and after
appreciation of grounds raised.
(iii) Even in the absence of a lawyer though the
appellate Court is competent to decide the
appeal on merits, if the accused is in jail and
cannot, on his own come to Court, it would
be advisable to adjourn the case and fix
another date to facilitate the appearance of
the accused/appellant if his lawyer is not
HARJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 329
present. If the lawyer is absent and the Court A
deems it appropriate to appoint a lawyer at
State expense to assist it, there is nothing in
the law to preclude it from doing so.
In view of the legal position with regard to the disposal of B
the appeals with reference to Sections 385-386 of the Code
and taking note of the special circumstances that the accused
was behind the bar and had no opportunity of make alternative
arrangement, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit
the matter to the High Court. We request the High Court to C
restore the appeal to its original number i.e., Criminal Appeal
No. 1440-SB of 2001 and dispose of the same after affording
opportunity to both sides particularly, to the appellant. Since the
appellant is in jail, we request the High Court to give priority
and dispose of the matter within a period of four months from 0 the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
R.P. Appeal disposed of.