PETITIONER:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SURENDER KOTIANKAR
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/08/1984
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
MISRA RANGNATH
CITATION:
1984 AIR 1586 1985 SCR (1) 349
1984 SCC (4) 370 1984 SCALE (2)232
ACT:
Constitution of India, Article 136-Discretion of the
Court to grant Special Leave to Appeal in criminal
proceedings-Whether in the absence of necessary papers
giving full facts, the Court may refuse leave.
Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XXI-Special Leave
Petitions in Criminal proceedings must contain necessary
papers giving full facts.
HEADNOTE:
In the petitions for special leave to appeal in
criminal proceedings, the petitioner annexed only a copy of
the judgment of the High Court but did not file any papers,
such as, copies of the charge-sheets or the judgment of the
Trial Court which could give full picture of the facts.
Dismissing the petitions,
^
HELD : 1. The Supreme Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 136 may not propose to proceed
further in the matter in which the petitioner has not chosen
to file any papers in the court apart from the judgment of
the High Court. Therefore, in the instant case, the Court
will not be justified in issuing a show cause notice to the
respondent when no attempt has been made to place all the
facts before it by filing the necessary documents. [350C-D]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) Nos. 1288 to 1301 of 1983.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31st January, 1983 of
the Karnataka High Court in Crl. Appeal Nos. 461 to 474 of
1981.
K.L. Sharma and M. Veerappa for the petitioner.
The Order of the Court mas delivered by
350
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. On pleas of guilty, the respondent
was convicted of several charges under Sections 408 and 477A
and sentenced in each case, by the Trial Magistrate, to
suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine
of either Rs. 50 or Rs. 100. The State preferred appeals to
the High Court for enhancement of the sentences. The appeals
were dismissed on the ground that the accused was a young
man who had already been punished sufficiently by the loss
of his job and also in view of the circumstance that more
than ten years had elapsed since the date of offence. We are
prima facie satisfied that the sentences are inadequate and
that the lenient sentences are the result of misplaced
sympathy. We do not however propose to proceed further in
the matter in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article
136 as the State of Karnataka who is the petitioner before
us has not chosen to file any papers before us apart from
the judgment of the High Court. The least that the
petitioner could have done to give us a full picture of the
facts was to file copies of the charge-sheets and the
charges and copies of the judgments of the Trial Court in
the different cases. We do not think that we will be
justified in issuing a show-cause notice to the respondents
when no attempt has been made to place all the facts before
us by filing the necessary documents. Apparently there is no
purposefulness in the filing of these petitions. They are
accordingly dismissed.
M.L.A. Petitions dismissed.
351