2013 INSC 0705
Shridhar Namdeo Lawand
v.
State of Maharashtra
(Supreme Court Of India)
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. P. SATHASIVAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJANA
PRAKASH DESAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
Criminal Appeal No. 1124 Of 2013 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6007 Of 2013) | 05-
08-2013

1) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2) Leave granted.

3) Against the conviction and sentence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the appellant has approached the High Court by
way of Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1997.

4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out the following two infirmities
in the impugned order.

(i) The appellant was not heard and the appeal was disposed of only on the basis of the
statement made by the Counsel-State.

(ii) The High Court has not gone into all the details and has not appreciated the evidence
placed by both sides.

5) In the light of the said contention, we have carefully perused the impugned order. Even at
the first sight, we noticed none appeared for the appellant-accused before the High Court.
This is evident from para 2 of the impugned order. Though, the High Court has mentioned
certain factual details, the fact remains that it has not analyzed the evidence led by the
prosecution and defence pleaded by the appellant-accused.

6) It is settled law that court should not decide criminal case in the absence of the counsel for
the accused as an accused in a criminal case should not suffer for the fault of his counsel and

1  SpotLaw
the court should, in such a situation must appoint another counsel as an amicus curiae to
defend the accused.

7) It is also equally settled that it is the duty of the appellate court to look into the evidence
adduced in the case to arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence
can be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon then whether prosecution can be
said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence. To put it clear, the
credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate court in drawing inference from
proved and admitted facts. In the case on hand, the said recourse has not been followed by the
High Court.

8) All the above principles have been reiterated in:
i) Bani Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720 (Larger Bench)

ii) Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 13 SCC 533 iii) Iqbal Abdul Samiya Malek vs.
State of Gujarat, (2012) 11 SCC 312 iv) K.S. Panduranga vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3
SCC 721

9) Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to High Court for fresh
disposal. We request the High Court to restore Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1997 on its file
and dispose of the same on merits, after affording opportunity to all the parties concerned.

10) It is brought to our notice that the appellant is in custody for nearly two months as against
the sentence of two years. Taking note of the said aspect, we are inclined to consider the
claim of the appellant for bail. Therefore, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail to the
satisfaction of the Special Judge for Greater Bombay in Session Case No. 57 of 1990 arising
out of FIR bearing CR No. 14/1989 PS, Anti Corruption Bureau, Greater Bombay till the
disposal of the appeal pending before the High Court.

11) The Special Judge is free to impose appropriate condition(s) as he deems fit.

12) The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

2  SpotLaw