https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174593 Article 134 and the Enlargement Act confer a substantive criminal appellate right, while Article 145 permits only procedural regulation; procedural rules may channel that right but cannot destroy it. Order XXI Rule 15(1)(c) and section 384 were therefore upheld only after being read down so that summary disposal is confined to cases where no real point survives, and grave first appeals involving death or long imprisonment ordinarily require fuller scrutiny. The Article 21 challenge also failed because fair procedure is context-dependent: notice, the record, and reasons are ordinarily required in serious first appeals, but not in every appeal. Summary dismissal remains available for plainly unmeritorious cases. en-us Wed, 24 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:21:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174593 Article 134 and the Enlargement Act confer a substantive criminal appellate right, while Article 145 permits only procedural regulation; procedural rules may channel that right but cannot destroy it. Order XXI Rule 15(1)(c) and section 384 were therefore upheld only after being read down so that summary disposal is confined to cases where no real point survives, and grave first appeals involving death or long imprisonment ordinarily require fuller scrutiny. The Article 21 challenge also failed because fair procedure is context-dependent: notice, the record, and reasons are ordinarily required in serious first appeals, but not in every appeal. Summary dismissal remains available for plainly unmeritorious cases. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174593