# MAHENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

- **Citation:** [1974] 1 S.C.R. 62
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-04-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1970
- **Bench:** K. K. Mathew, l. D. DUA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mahendra-singh-v-state-of-west-bengal-6013
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A
Arms Act, 1959, Ss. 25(1)(a) and 27-Scop< of-Posussion of arms not for
B
onti-social purpvse-No licence-Sentence.
Practice-High Court's power to di.~miss appeal sun1n1arily-Desirability of
giving rea:rpn:r-Delay in final disposal of criminal appeals~Eflect of.
On receipt of information the police searched the appellant's hou:iie on May
14, 1968.
In the central room of that house there was an almirah of which the
key was produced by the appellant and handed over to the Inspector of Police.
When the almirah was opened with the key it was found to contain a bag with
C
live cartridges and a gun.
As no licence or permit for their possession was produced, the appellant was prosecuted and was convicted under Ss. 25(l){a) and
27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for
two years R.I.
His appeal to the High Court was dismissed summarily. Special
leave to appeal to this Court was granted and the accused was on bail pending
dispo•al of the appeal.
HELD : ( 1) The High Court has the power to dismiss an appeal in limine
where in its opinion there is no substance in the appeal.
But in cases
where
D
queStions of fact or law. which are arguable and which are not unsubstantial, are
raised. it is desirable that the High Court, while dismissing summarily, should
indicate broadly the reasons which prevailed with it.
In such cases not only the
reasons recorded by the High Court would be helpful to this Court in better
understanding and appreciating the High Court's line of approach but it would
nlso serve to assure the accused that the arguable points in his appeal have been
properly argued and duly considered by the High Court. [64D-F]
Mush1ak Hussain v. Bombay [19531 S.C.R. 809 and Mushtaq Ahmed Hussain
E
and Mukhtar Hussain Ali Hussain v. The State of Gui., Cr. A. No. 9 of 1973 de~
cided on !3-3-73 followed.
(2) However, it is undesirable and unnecessary in the larger interests
of
justice to send the present case back to the High Court for re-decision.
The
appellant was convicted in June 1969 and the High Court's decision was shortly
thereafter.
TJndue delay in final disposal of criminal appeals tends to some extent to defeat the very puroosc of criminal justice.
Speedy disposal of criminal
cases for commission of offences promotes confidence of the society in the adF
ministration of criminal justice which is essential for sustaining the faith of the
law-abiding members of the society in the effectiveness of the rule of law. It
also saves the accused from avoidable harassment inherent in unreasonably pro~
longed trials and appeals. [64F-H; 65A-BJ
(3) On the evidence oD. the record it is not possible to bold that the e::dstence
of the arm<; in the almirah was without the appellant's knowledge and that his
possession of the arms was unconscious.
Therefore.
his
conviction
under
'· 25(l)(a) was justified. [65E-F]
G
( 4) There is no evidence in support of the conviction for the offence under
~. 27, and therefore, his conviction under that section cannot be sustained.
[65F:Gl
(5) There is no evidence of any undesirable: antece~ent~ of the app~l!ant,
and the poo;;o;;e<;sion of the arms has not been shown to be 1nsp1red by anv s1n1ster
puroose.
Since more th~n ~ y~ars bad elapsed si_nce ~he date of the offence it
would be in the ends of 1ushce 1f the sentence of 1mpnsonment was reduced to
that already undergone and a sent'ence of fine is imposed in addition.
[65H;
H
66A-B]

## Text

62
MAHENDRA SINGH
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
April 24, 1973
[K. K. MATHEW AND l. D. DUA, JJ.]
A
Arms Act, 1959, Ss. 25(1)(a) and 27-Scop< of-Posussion of arms not for
B
onti-social purpvse-No licence-Sentence.
Practice-High Court's power to di.~miss appeal sun1n1arily-Desirability of
giving rea:rpn:r-Delay in final disposal of criminal appeals~Eflect of.
On receipt of information the police searched the appellant's hou:iie on May
14, 1968.
In the central room of that house there was an almirah of which the
key was produced by the appellant and handed over to the Inspector of Police.
When the almirah was opened with the key it was found to contain a bag with
C
live cartridges and a gun.
As no licence or permit for their possession was produced, the appellant was prosecuted and was convicted under Ss. 25(l){a) and
27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for
two years R.I.
His appeal to the High Court was dismissed summarily. Special
leave to appeal to this Court was granted and the accused was on bail pending
dispo•al of the appeal.
HELD : ( 1) The High Court has the power to dismiss an appeal in limine
where in its opinion there is no substance in the appeal.
But in cases
where
D
queStions of fact or law. which are arguable and which are not unsubstantial, are
raised. it is desirable that the High Court, while dismissing summarily, should
indicate broadly the reasons which prevailed with it.
In such cases not only the
reasons recorded by the High Court would be helpful to this Court in better
understanding and appreciating the High Court's line of approach but it would
nlso serve to assure the accused that the arguable points in his appeal have been
properly argued and duly considered by the High Court. [64D-F]
Mush1ak Hussain v. Bombay [19531 S.C.R. 809 and Mushtaq Ahmed Hussain
E
and Mukhtar Hussain Ali Hussain v. The State of Gui., Cr. A. No. 9 of 1973 de~
cided on !3-3-73 followed.
(2) However, it is undesirable and unnecessary in the larger interests
of
justice to send the present case back to the High Court for re-decision.
The
appellant was convicted in June 1969 and the High Court's decision was shortly
thereafter.
TJndue delay in final disposal of criminal appeals tends to some extent to defeat the very puroosc of criminal justice.
Speedy disposal of criminal
cases for commission of offences promotes confidence of the society in the adF
ministration of criminal justice which is essential for sustaining the faith of the
law-abiding members of the society in the effectiveness of the rule of law. It
also saves the accused from avoidable harassment inherent in unreasonably pro~
longed trials and appeals. [64F-H; 65A-BJ
(3) On the evidence oD. the record it is not possible to bold that the e::dstence
of the arm<; in the almirah was without the appellant's knowledge and that his
possession of the arms was unconscious.
Therefore.
his
conviction
under
'· 25(l)(a) was justified. [65E-F]
G
( 4) There is no evidence in support of the conviction for the offence under
~. 27, and therefore, his conviction under that section cannot be sustained.
[65F:Gl
(5) There is no evidence of any undesirable: antece~ent~ of the app~l!ant,
and the poo;;o;;e<;sion of the arms has not been shown to be 1nsp1red by anv s1n1ster
puroose.
Since more th~n ~ y~ars bad elapsed si_nce ~he date of the offence it
would be in the ends of 1ushce 1f the sentence of 1mpnsonment was reduced to
that already undergone and a sent'ence of fine is imposed in addition.
[65H;
H
66A-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 3 of
1970.
A
c
D
E
L
'.
F
G
H
MAHENDRA SINGH v. WEST BENGAL (Dua, J.)
63
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June
24, 1969 of the Calcutta High Court in Cr. Appeal No. 378 of 1969.
I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
P. K. Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DUA, J .-This appeal by special leave is directed against the
order of summary dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the High Court
of Calcutta from the judgment and order of a learned AJditional
Sessions Judge, Asansol dated June 18, 1969 convicting the appellant
for offences under ss. 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
According to the prosecution case, on receipt of secret information,
Inspector Kali Prasanna Chaudhury of Detective Department. along
with Circle Inspector, S. L. Routh, S.I. K. D. Chakravarty, Officer-incharge of Hirapur police station and S.l. K. D. Chatterjee, Town SubInspector of Asansol and some constables searched the appellant's
house on May 14, 1968 between 6.40 a.m. and 9 a.m. in the presence
of some other witnesses.
In the Central Room of the hou'e there was
an almirah of which the key was produced by the appellant and handed
over to Inspector Kaliprasanna Chaudhury (P.W. 1 ).
The
almirah
was opened with the said key wherein was found a bag containing seven
.12 bore live cartridges, seven .410 bore live cartridges, nine rifle
ammunition and one .12 bore fired cartridge case.
There was also
found a gun folded into two parts under a bundle of clothes on the
lowest shelf.
The appellant could not produce any licence or permit
for the possession of the gun and the cartridges.
As a result of this
recovery the appellant was arrested and challanged. He was duly committed by a magistrate to the court of Sessions.
The principal question which fell for decision at his trial was whether it could be said that
he was in possession of the articles found from the almirah, as contemplated by s. 25 of the Arms Act.
After discussing the evidence
and the legal position on the question of presumption of conscious possession in circumstances like the present, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that these articles were in the appellant's conscious possession.
No licence or permit for these articles
having been produced, the appellant was convicted ,both under s.
25 (1 )(a) and under s. 27 of the Arms Act. Under s. 27 of the Arms
Act no separate sentence was considered necessary but under s.
25 ( 1 )(a) he was se!'tenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years.
It may incidentally be mentioned that in the trial court on behalf
of the appellant the legality of the investigation into the offence in ques·
tion was also assailed, it being further contended that the S.I. K. D.
Chakravarty, Officer-in-charge of Hirapur police station was not empowered to investigate the case.
As these questions are not agitated
in this Court, we need say nothing on those points.
Against his conviction the appellant appealed to the High Court
under.s. 410. Cr.P.C. but this appeal was dismissed summarily on
June 24. 1969 without indicating any reasons in support of the order
of summary dismissal.
64
SUPREME COURT REPOP.TS
( 1974) 1 p.C.I.
Before us on behaH of the appellant it was contended that the
A.
order of summary dismissal by the High Court is contrary to the consistent view taken by this Court in numerous decisions where it has
been firmly laid down that if an appeal raises arguable points of fact or
law, then, it is undesirable and improper to dismiss it summarily without indicating, at least broadly the reasons for sue h dismissal.
In this
case, according to the submission, the question of the conscious possession of the articles, on the facts and circumstances of this case. was of
considerable importance and it required scrutiny of the evidence on the
record.
The appeal also raised some other questions relating to the
alleged infirmities in the search conducted during the investigation.
Indeed, according to the appellant's counsel, there were
nearly
ten
grounds of appeal in the memorandum which suggest that the question
of the conscious possession of these articles clearly required a closer
scrutiny of the evidence in the case.
C
In our view, there is force in the appellant's contention.
Beginning with the decision in Mushtak Hussein v. The Staie of Bombay(')
this Court has, in numerous cases, emphasised the extreme desirability
of indicating, however broadly, the reasons which prevail with the High
Court in dismissing summarily an appeal in which questions of fact or
law are raised, which do not seem to be unarguable or insub>tantial.
This, however, does not mean that the statute does not empower the
High Court to dismiS"S an appeal in limine where in its opinion there is
no substance in the appeal.
The latest decision of this Court was
given on March 13. 1973 in Musraq Ahmed Mnhnme'1 Hussain and
Mukhtar Hussain Ali Hussain v. The State of Gujarat( 2 )
in which
some of the previous decisions of this Court on this point have been
digested.
In arguable cases not only would the reasons recorded by
the High Court be helpful to this Court in better understanding and
appreciating the High Court's line of approach, but it would also serve
to assure the accused that the arguable points in his appeal were properly argued and duly considered by the High Court.
This assurance
cannot be considered to be without importance and value.
The question, however, arises whether it is desirable and necessary
in the larger interest of justice to send the present case back to the High
Court for re-decision or it would be more conducive to the cause of
justice that we ourselves examine the evidence and dispose
of the
appeal finally without further prolonging the proceedings against the
appellant. It may be pointed out that the recovery of the articfos in
·question was effected as far back as May, 1968 and the appellant's
conviction by the trial court is dated June 16, 1969. The High Court
dismissed his appeal on June 24, 1969, and this Court granted special
leave on January 8, 1970 when the appellant was released on bail.
More than 3 years have now elapsed since the grant of special leave
and the appellant's release on bail We consider it would be highly
unfair and unjust to the appellant to prolong the uncertainty of the
final fate of this case by sending it back to the High Court for final
disposal of the appeal after re-hearing. w"' have. therefore,
undertaken to examine the evidence ourselves because that would guaran~ee
speedy disposal of the case against the appellant.
We may in this con-
(!) (1953) S.C.R. 806.
(2) Crl. A. No. 9of1973 decided on 13-3-73.
D
E
F
G
H
'
;-
•
A
B
c
D
E
MAHENDRA SINGH V, WEST BENGAL (Dua, ].)
65
nection point out that undue delay in the final disposal of criminal cases
tends, to some extent, to defeat the very purpose of criminal justice.
Speedy disposal of criminal cases for commission of offences promotes
confidence of the society in the administration of criminal justice which
is essential for sustaining the faith of the Jaw-abiding members of the
society in the effectiveness of the rule of law.
It also saves the accused
from avoidable harassment inherent in unreasonably prolonged trials
and appeals.
After having been taken through the evidence, we find that the
testimony of K. P. Choudhary, P.W.l that the appellant had produced
the key of the almirah in question and handed it over to the witness
who opened the almirt;h with that key is trust-worthy and no infirmity
is found in his evidence.
The evidence of Dharmadas Thakur, P.W.-
2, fully supports the evidence of P.W.1 on this porn!.
So does the evidence of Santosh Lal Routh, P.W.4. No doubt P.W.I and P.W.4 are
police officers, but P.W.2 is an employee of Indian Iron & Steel Company Ltd.
The appellant worked in the department of ~.W. 2.
Now
once it is held that the appellant had produced the key of the almirah
the presumption arises that the arms found in that almfrah were in his
possession.
No doubt, there were certain articles belonging to women.
but that is immaterial. It is not the appellant's case that this key used'
to be taken by the other members of his family who used to place their
articles in this almirah without the appellant's knowledge and that anyone of them might, therefore, have placed the arms in question in that
almirah without his knowledge.
In fact, the appellant has on the other
hand, completely denied the recovery of these articles from the
almirah.
His plea is not wholly irrelevant and can certainly be taken
into consideration.
On the evidence on the record, therefore, it is not possible to hold
that ihe existence 'of the arms in the almirah were without the appellant's knowledge or that his possession of the arms was unconscious.
His conviction under s. 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act, 1969 is, therefore,
fully justified.
It is, however, difficult to sustain his conviction under
F
s. 27 of the Arms Act.
There is no, evidence to support the offence
under that section and indeed the trial court has convicted him without
properly applying its mind to the ingredients of that offence.
The
judgment of the trial court seems to suggest that mere possession of
the arms would also constitute an offence under s. 27 of the Arms Act.
This view is clearly not correct.
But since no separate sentence was
imposed under s. 27, it is unnecessary to say anything more about it
G
than that the· conviction under s. 27 must be quashed.
The question, however, arises as to what sentence in the circumsiances of the case would meet the ends of justice.
As already observed, the offence was committed in May, 1968 and the appeilant was
convicted in June, 1969. We are now in April, 1973.
The possession of the arms in question has not been shown to be inspired by any
H
sinister purpose.
There is no evidence of any undesirable antecedents of the appellant, nor is there any suggestion that the arms were
likely to be used for some antisocial purpose.
Their possession by the .
appellant might well have been intended to be utilized for the purpose
6-L944 Sup. CI/73
66
SUPREME COUllT REPORTS
[ 1974] 1 S.C.L
of self-defence, though undoubtedly the possession was without a prcr
per licence.
Considering all the relevant circumstances of the case,
we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone and a sentence of fine of
Rs. 5001- is in addition imposed on the appellant and in default of
payment of fine, the appellant is directed to serve a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month.
We order accordingly.
The appeal succeeds in part to the extent just stated.
V.P.S.
Appeal partly allowed.
'
A
B