1994 (4) TMI 393 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court reinstates appeal after High Court dismissal, citing lack of justification and emphasizing judicial impartiality.

The Supreme Court reinstated an appeal that was dismissed by the High Court due to lawyers' strike, criticizing the High Court's lack of proper ... Dismissal for want of prosecution - judicial restraint - prejudice and closed mind - decision on merits without hearing - conduct of advocates and strike - power to decide appeal on merits without hearing under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureDismissal for want of prosecution - conduct of advocates and strike - High Court erred in dismissing the criminal appeal for want of prosecution and in treating the advocates' strike and its reported reasons as justification for dismissal. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the High Court improperly based its order of dismissal on extraneous material and newspaper reports about the advocates' agitation and the reasons for the strike. A trial court or appellate Bench should confine itself to whether there was justification for the absence of the appellant's counsel on the day the appeal was listed, and not embark upon or comment upon the motives or alleged unruly conduct of the Bar when those matters are not before it. The observations quoted from the High Court demonstrated want of judicial restraint and an impermissible intrusion of personal prejudice into the decision-making process. Prejudice or a closed mind is inconsistent with fair hearing and independent judgment; therefore the dismissal founded on such extraneous commentary was set aside and the appeal was ordered restored for hearing on merits. [Paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]High Court's order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution was set aside and the appeal restored to file for hearing on merits.Decision on merits without hearing - power to decide appeal on merits without hearing under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - judicial restraint - Whether the High Court should have proceeded to decide the appeal on merits without hearing the parties in view of the advocates' absence. - HELD THAT: - While Section 386 CrPC empowers a court in certain exigencies to decide an appeal on merits without hearing the parties, the Supreme Court emphasised that such power must be exercised with caution. Reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of Bihar was noted by the High Court; however, the impugned order failed to restrict its inquiry to the factual justification for non-appearance and instead condemned the Bar's conduct at large. The correct approach is to inquire into the justification for absence and to avoid using the power to decide on merits as a vehicle for chastising or penalising extraneous conduct not shown to obstruct the judicial process. [Paras 4, 5, 6]The High Court should not have exercised the power to decide the appeal on merits in the circumstances described; it must confine itself to the factual question of justification for non-appearance and then proceed appropriately.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's dismissal for want of prosecution, criticised the High Court's indulgence in extraneous and prejudicial observations about the advocates' strike, and directed that the appeal be restored to the file and heard on merits. Issues:1. Dismissal of criminal appeal for want of prosecution due to lawyers' strike.2. Judicial restraint and impartiality of the High Court judge.3. Impact of personal prejudice on judicial decision-making.Analysis:1. The appellants were convicted and sentenced under Sections 147 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the High Court for want of prosecution due to lawyers' strike. The appellant argued that the Court should have focused on the absence of appellant's counsel rather than the reasons for the strike. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for dismissing the appeal without proper justification and reinstated the appeal for a hearing on merits.2. The High Court's observations regarding the lawyers' strike and their demands for the transfer of the Chief Justice were deemed unwarranted by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial restraint and impartiality, stating that judges should not let personal prejudices influence their decisions. The Supreme Court highlighted the need for judges to maintain mental equipoise and not allow personal biases to affect their judgment, citing relevant legal principles and precedents.3. The Supreme Court emphasized that a closed mind and prejudice are detrimental to fair hearing and independent judgment. Judges must adhere to relevant legal rules and maintain impartiality in decision-making. The Court criticized the High Court judge for expressing bias against the advocates and their opinions regarding the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the restoration of the appeal for a fair hearing on merits, emphasizing the importance of judicial integrity and impartiality in the legal process.