Issue
Facts
Reasoning
Decision
Lashkari Ram And Others
v.
Mast Ram Tanta And Another
(Supreme Court Of India)
Criminal Appeal No. 226 Of 1983 | 01-09-1998
NANAVATI, J.
In this appeal, filed by some of the officers of the Himacahal Pradesh Government, what is called in question are the remarks made against them by the High Court, while disposing of Criminal Revision No. 56/82.
Respondent No.1 Mast Ram Tanta was tried by the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Theog for certain offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Forest Act. Respondent No. 1 pleaded quilty and was sentenced to pay fine only. The High Courtfinding that the sentence imposed upon Respondent No. 1 was inadequate, in exercise of its sub moto powers, issued notice to him calling him to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced. During those proceedings the High Court found that the whole trial was conducted in an unholy haste and there was plea bargaining. Therefore, instead of enhancing the sentence it thought it proper to quash the whole trial and remanded the case back to the trial court for conducting the trial afresh. While disposing of the Revision Application in that manner the High Court made certain observations against the present appellants.
Having gone through the judgment, we find that the said observations are part and parcel of the reasoning of the High Court and they have been made while appreciating the evidence on record. Those observations are a part of the reasoning of the High Court. They cannot be expunged because that will amount to removing the very foundation on which the High Court judgment is based.
We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
In this appeal, filed by some of the officers of the Himacahal Pradesh Government, what is called in question are the remarks made against them by the High Court, while disposing of Criminal Revision No. 56/82.
Respondent No.1 Mast Ram Tanta was tried by the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Theog for certain offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Forest Act. Respondent No. 1 pleaded quilty and was sentenced to pay fine only. The High Courtfinding that the sentence imposed upon Respondent No. 1 was inadequate, in exercise of its sub moto powers, issued notice to him calling him to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced. During those proceedings the High Court found that the whole trial was conducted in an unholy haste and there was plea bargaining. Therefore, instead of enhancing the sentence it thought it proper to quash the whole trial and remanded the case back to the trial court for conducting the trial afresh. While disposing of the Revision Application in that manner the High Court made certain observations against the present appellants.
Having gone through the judgment, we find that the said observations are part and parcel of the reasoning of the High Court and they have been made while appreciating the evidence on record. Those observations are a part of the reasoning of the High Court. They cannot be expunged because that will amount to removing the very foundation on which the High Court judgment is based.
We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties ----
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. T. NANAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. P. KURDUKAR
Eq Citation
AIR 1998 SC 3334
(1998) 6 SCC 666
1998 CRILJ 4602
1998 (3) CRIMES 230 (SC)
1998 6 AD (SC) 653
1998 (2) ALD (CRL) 649
JT 1998 (6) SC 195
1998 (5) SCALE 139
LQ/SC/1998/884
HeadNote
Constitution of India — Arts. 136 and 137 — Criminal Revision — Remarks made by High Court against appellants — Whether liable to be expunged — Held, observations made by High Court are part and parcel of reasoning of High Court and are made while appreciating evidence on record — They cannot be expunged because that will amount to removing very foundation on which High Court judgment is based — Hence, appeal dismissed — Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 279, 336 and 337 — Forest Act, 1927, Ss. 26(1) & (2)
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
