- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
G. Raj Mallaiah And Another v. State Of A.P .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants, parents-in-law of deceased G. Madhavi Latha, were charge-sheeted for offences under Section 304-B IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with Section 498-A IPC. The prosecution alleged that Madhavi Latha, married to the appellants’ son on 8-6-1983, was subjected to dowry-related harassment and ultimately committed suicide on 27-6-1989, succumbing to burn injuries on 29-6-1989.
After examining 20 prosecution and two defence witnesses, the trial court acquitted the appellants of the dowry-death and Dowry Prohibition Act charges but convicted them under Section 498-A IPC, sentencing each to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 200.
The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 1993 in the High Court. Their original advocates (Shri Shankar Rao Biloliker and Shri Milind Gokhale) were replaced with Shri Anil Kumar and Shri C. Praveen Kumar, whose memo of appearance dated 25-10-1993 was not entered in the cause list. Consequently, when the matter was listed on several dates in August 1997, the cause list still displayed the name of the retired counsel, and no one appeared. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 28-8-1997.
The appellants moved Miscellaneous Petition No. 4201 of 1997 under Section 482 CrPC seeking restoration. Despite an internal inquiry confirming registry error in the cause list, the High Court refused to set aside its judgment. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court, which granted leave.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court’s dismissal of the criminal appeal on merits, in the absence of the appellants’ counsel caused by a registry error, amounted to a miscarriage of justice warranting restoration of the appeal.
- Whether the principle laid down in Bani Singh v. State of U.P. (1996 4 SCC 720) permits such dismissal when neither the appellants nor their counsel had actual notice of the hearing.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The absence of counsel was due solely to the High Court registry’s failure to reflect the correct advocates in the cause list, not to any neglect by the appellants or their lawyers.
- Proceeding to decide the appeal on merits without hearing the appellants violated principles of natural justice and resulted in grave prejudice.
- The precedent in Bani Singh is distinguishable because it presupposes that the appellant or counsel had notice of the hearing, which was absent here.
Respondent’s Position
The respondent remained unrepresented; no arguments were recorded.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bani Singh v. State of U.P. (1996) 4 SCC 720; AIR 1996 SC 2439 | An appellate court may decide a criminal appeal on merits even if the appellant and counsel are absent; mere dismissal for non-prosecution is not contemplated. | The Supreme Court held that the Bani Singh principle did not justify the High Court’s action because, unlike in that case, the appellants here had no notice of the hearing due to a registry mistake, leading to miscarriage of justice. |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court acknowledged that, generally, an appellate court can decide an appeal on merits in the absence of counsel. However, it drew a distinction where such absence is attributable not to the litigant or lawyer but to an administrative error by the court registry. Because the registry failed to update the cause list with the names of the new advocates, neither the appellants nor their duly engaged counsel were aware of the listing dates.
In these circumstances, the Court found that the High Court’s refusal to restore the appeal “resulted in miscarriage of justice.” It considered Bani Singh but concluded that the precedent does not apply where there is demonstrable lack of notice. The Court emphasized that the integrity of the judicial process requires that parties receive proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED—The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dismissing the appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court with a direction to restore Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 1993 to its original number and dispose of it in accordance with law.
Immediate Implication: The appellants’ criminal appeal is revived and will be heard afresh by the High Court. The decision sets no new legal precedent but reinforces the requirement that courts ensure correct listing of counsel to safeguard the right to a fair hearing.
S. Rajendra Babu, J.— Leave granted.
2. The appellants were charge-sheeted for offences arising under Section 304 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with Section 498-A IPC. The allegation made in the charge-sheet is that one G. Madhavi Latha was married to Manik Prabhu the son of the appellants herein on 8-6-1983; that the deceased Madhavi Latha, the appellants and her husband were living in Hyderabad; that on 27-6-1989 Madhavi Latha is said to have committed suicide by setting fire to herself in the presence of her children and she succumbed to the same on 29-6-1989; that the appellants were ill-treating the deceased by hurling abuses at her and did not provide proper or timely food as she did not bring enough money towards dowry. In the trial 20 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and several documents were marked while the defence examined two witnesses and also got several documents marked. The trial court held that the offences arising under Section 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were not established and acquitted them of the said charges. However, the trial court convicted the appellants for offence arising under Section 498-A and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs 200 each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
3. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the appellants preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 1993 on the file of the High Court. The appellants engaged the services of Shri Shankar Rao Biloliker and Shri Milind Gokhale and subsequently they were replaced by Shri Anil Kumar and Shri C. Praveen Kumar, Advocates who filed memo of appearance with the consent of the learned counsel appearing earlier in the case. The appeal was listed for hearing on 12-8-1997 when Mr Milind Gokhale filed a memo stating that the appellant had taken away the file and wanted to engage some other counsel and he had already endorsed his no objection on the vakalatnama. The matter was listed for hearing on 14-8-1997, 26-8-1997, 27-8-1997 and finally on 28-8-1997 on which date the matter was dismissed. On all these dates the name of Mr Milind Gokhale was shown as the learned counsel for the appellants whereas in fact Mr Anil Kumar and Shri Praveen Kumar had filed memo of appearance on 25-10-1993. However, that information was not put up with the file, neither fed into the computer, nor printed in the cause list. In those circumstances the appeal came to be dismissed in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellants.
4. An application was filed by the parties under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Miscellaneous Petition No. 4201 of 1997 seeking for setting aside the judgment passed on 28-8-1997 dismissing their appeal. The said application set out the facts to which we have adverted to now about the change of the advocates and the names of the new advocates appearing in the case not having been shown in the cause list. In fact, the High Court held an enquiry into the matter and called upon the office to make a report and the said report, a copy of which is made available to us, reflects what we have stated about the mistake of the office in not indicating the names of the advocates and about the change of the advocates. It is clearly admitted in the report that by mistake the names of Mr Anil Kumar and Mr Praveen Kumar were not shown in the cause list. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition observing that Mr Milind Gokhale whose name was shown in the cause list should have informed the appellants and the criminal appeal having been disposed of on merits, the same could not be restored. The respondent remained unrepresented.
5. It is no doubt true that it is open to the court to dispose of an appeal on merits even in the absence of the learned counsel appearing for the parties when the case is set down for hearing and the advocate or the party concerned does not appear. However, when the learned counsel could not appear before the court not on account of the fault either of the appellant or the advocates themselves, but on account of mistake committed by the Registry of the High Court in not showing the names of the counsel in the cause list properly and the counsel not being aware of the listing of the case before the court in such a matter we do not think that the principle should be extended.
6. We may notice a decision of this Court in Bani Singh v. State of U.P (1996) 4 SCC 720, AIR 1996 SC 2439 in which a Bench of three Judges considering the scope of Sections 385 and 386 CrPC took the view that while dealing with an appeal under the Code, both the appellant and his lawyer if absent on the dates set down for hearing, the court is not bound to adjourn the case and may dispose of the appeal on merits and dismissal of the appeal simpliciter for non-prosecution is not contemplated. In the aforesaid decision, it is also noticed that by adopting this procedure if a case is decided on merits in the absence of the appellant or his advocate, the higher court can remedy the situation if there has been a failure of justice. In the present case the case was set down for hearing on different dates without notifying the names of the advocates appearing for the appellant, but showing the name of the advocate who had retired from the case. Therefore, it could not be stated that the appellant or his advocate had notice of hearing of the case on the dates set down for hearing. Hence, we must hold that the decision in the case without hearing the appellants or their advocate has resulted in miscarriage of justice and the principle stated in the decision in Bani Singh v. State of U.P (1996) 4 SCC 720, AIR 1996 SC 2439 does not come in the way of the view we have expressed in this case.
7. Therefore the order made by the High Court dismissing the appeal is set aside and the matter shall stand remitted to the High Court which shall be disposed of in accordance with law by restoring the appeal to its original number. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
Alert