# RAJENDRAPAUL RAMASARAN DASS SHARMA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA '

- **Citation:** [1973] 3 S.C.R. 548
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-03-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 1972
- **Bench:** A. Alagiriswami, l. D. DUA, C. A. Vaidialingam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rajendrapaul-ramasaran-dass-sharma-v-state-of-maharashtra-5900
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Whether High Court should give a. :Jpeaking order in dismissing •1n
appeal or merely disniiss the appeal in limine.
The appellant was running a Octroi Cleari,ing Agency at
'Mulund
Check-Post' in th,e State of Maharashtra.
He used to attend to certain
transactions of Montgomery Transport Co. also.
On
December
16,
1968, a truck of the said transport co~pany arfived at the Check-Post
with a machine to be delivered to M/IS. Imperial
Tobacco
Co.
The
appellant i.nformed the Manager of the Transport Company to arrange
for the payment of Octroi whii:::h amounted to mor_e than Rs. 8,000/-.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 8,1961- was han~ed over to the appe1lant
in the J.'resence of the Driver of the truck.
It was found
out
after
investigation that the receipt for the payment of Octroi held by
the
Imperial Tobacco Co. was not genuine a.00 on a complaint lodged by
the Company, the- appe11ant \Vas arrested and committed for trial to
the Court Of Sessions, under S. 467, 471 read With S. 467 and S. 420
of J.P .C.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant for an offence under s. 471
read with s. 467 I. P. C. and for an offe;rn::e under s. 420 I. P. C.
The
appeal to the High Court was dismissed
in
limine
with
the
word
"dismissed". The _point raised before this Court was whether the High
Court was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine with
one
word
"dismissed'', without making a speaking order indicating
the
reason-;
for dismissal.
Remand~ng the cas.e to the High Court for re~headng.
HELD : (i) The importance of the opinion of the High Court on
arguable points requiring consideration in appeal in that Court
when ·
questions of fact or law are open to challenge by the
appellant . was
emphasised more than 20 years ago by this Court in Mustaq Hussain
v. The State of Bombay, [1953] S.C.R. 809.
Sinoo then, in a series
of decision~ this Court has consistently drawn the attention
of the
High c·ourts to the desirability of giving an indiCation of their views
on .,t~e points . raised in ~rguable cases in ac<:ordait<
with
the
legal
position enunciated by .this Court.
[552-AB.]
(ii) In K. TS:. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1973
S.C.
243
it was reiterated that . reason~ before the High Court for dismissing the
appeal, if recorded, would be a valuable assistance to this Court
in
finally dismissing of the appeal
on
merits.
Another
advantage
of
recording . iucb reasons is that the accused-appellant, who
may
not
always be present in the court, would have ,the satisfaction of knowing
from the judgment that the points appropriately arising for cQooideration in· his case, were actually argued and duly considered by this High
Court while dismis!ling .his appeal. In the present
case,
since
the·
High Court did not record its reasons for dismissing the appeal, this
ceurt has no option but to remaJl(! the case to the High Court for
rehearing and deciding the appeal after considering the points raised and
recording its reasons in accordanee with law. [S52FG&553AJ
A
c
D
I·
F
G
H
A
n
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAJBNDRAPAiJL v. STATE (Dua, J,)
SU
Mustaq Husmin v. State of Bombay, [19S3] S.C.R.
809,
iind
K. K. lain v. State of Maharashtra, A.LR. 1973 S.C. 243,
refetkd to.

## Text

548
RAJENDRAPAUL RAMASARAN DASS SHARMA
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA '
February .23, 1973
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, l. D. DUA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.)
Whether High Court should give a. :Jpeaking order in dismissing •1n
appeal or merely disniiss the appeal in limine.
The appellant was running a Octroi Cleari,ing Agency at
'Mulund
Check-Post' in th,e State of Maharashtra.
He used to attend to certain
transactions of Montgomery Transport Co. also.
On
December
16,
1968, a truck of the said transport co~pany arfived at the Check-Post
with a machine to be delivered to M/IS. Imperial
Tobacco
Co.
The
appellant i.nformed the Manager of the Transport Company to arrange
for the payment of Octroi whii:::h amounted to mor_e than Rs. 8,000/-.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 8,1961- was han~ed over to the appe1lant
in the J.'resence of the Driver of the truck.
It was found
out
after
investigation that the receipt for the payment of Octroi held by
the
Imperial Tobacco Co. was not genuine a.00 on a complaint lodged by
the Company, the- appe11ant \Vas arrested and committed for trial to
the Court Of Sessions, under S. 467, 471 read With S. 467 and S. 420
of J.P .C.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant for an offence under s. 471
read with s. 467 I. P. C. and for an offe;rn::e under s. 420 I. P. C.
The
appeal to the High Court was dismissed
in
limine
with
the
word
"dismissed". The _point raised before this Court was whether the High
Court was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine with
one
word
"dismissed'', without making a speaking order indicating
the
reason-;
for dismissal.
Remand~ng the cas.e to the High Court for re~headng.
HELD : (i) The importance of the opinion of the High Court on
arguable points requiring consideration in appeal in that Court
when ·
questions of fact or law are open to challenge by the
appellant . was
emphasised more than 20 years ago by this Court in Mustaq Hussain
v. The State of Bombay, [1953] S.C.R. 809.
Sinoo then, in a series
of decision~ this Court has consistently drawn the attention
of the
High c·ourts to the desirability of giving an indiCation of their views
on .,t~e points . raised in ~rguable cases in ac<:ordait<
with
the
legal
position enunciated by .this Court.
[552-AB.]
(ii) In K. TS:. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1973
S.C.
243
it was reiterated that . reason~ before the High Court for dismissing the
appeal, if recorded, would be a valuable assistance to this Court
in
finally dismissing of the appeal
on
merits.
Another
advantage
of
recording . iucb reasons is that the accused-appellant, who
may
not
always be present in the court, would have ,the satisfaction of knowing
from the judgment that the points appropriately arising for cQooideration in· his case, were actually argued and duly considered by this High
Court while dismis!ling .his appeal. In the present
case,
since
the·
High Court did not record its reasons for dismissing the appeal, this
ceurt has no option but to remaJl(! the case to the High Court for
rehearing and deciding the appeal after considering the points raised and
recording its reasons in accordanee with law. [S52FG&553AJ
A
c
D
I·
F
G
H
A
n
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAJBNDRAPAiJL v. STATE (Dua, J,)
SU
Mustaq Husmin v. State of Bombay, [19S3] S.C.R.
809,
iind
K. K. lain v. State of Maharashtra, A.LR. 1973 S.C. 243,
refetkd to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRisDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
264 of 1972.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
March 6, 1972 of the Bombay High Court at Bombay in Cr. A.
No. 164 of 1972.
M. N. Sharma, for the appellant.
S. B, Wad and Rine Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DUA, J .-The appellant in this appeal by special leave was
tried in the court of Session for Greater Bombay !ft Bombay for
offences under s. 467, under s. 471 read withs. 467 and under s.
420, I.P.C. Accordiilg to the prosecution the appellant was running
an octroi clearing agency under the name and style of "National
Octroi Clearing Agency" at the Mulund check-post. He used to
attend to certain transactions relating to the transport companies,
one of those companies being the Montgomery Transport Com·
pany. On December 16, 1962 a truck belonging to the said transport company bearing no. MPR 2147 arrived at the check-post
carrying a Depleix Machine to be delivered to Messrs Imperial
Tobacco Company. There were two drivers and one cleaner in the
truck. On being approached by them the appellant telephoned to
manager Bakshi of the Transport Company to arrange for the payment of octroi which amounted to more than Rs. 8,000/-. The
Manager, Bakshi and Director, Inderjit Singh went to the Imperial
Tobacco Company the following day and after getting Rs. 8,196/·
for the octroi reached the Mulund Check-post. The amount was
handed over to the appellant in the presence ofthe driver. Actually
only Rs. 8,1801- were required for the o_ctroi with the.result that
Rs. 16 I· were paid back to Messrs Imperial Tobacco Company
by means of a cheque. During the investigation of another case
arising out of an alleged forged receipt relating to octroi in respect of some imports by Messrs Pure Drinks Private Ltd., it came
to light that proper octroi had not been paid on December 17 ,.
1968 in respect of the transaction in question in the present case.
The Assistant Assessor and Collector, Shri Karkhanis, after sending his superintendent Govind Charan to the office of Messrs Imperial Tobacco Company he hilriself ·also visited the Company's
office and they both felt that the receipt for the payment of octroi
held by the said Company was not genuine.
Having failed to
trace the necessary relevant docume]lts in the . office files Shri
Karkhanis lodged the complaint in February, 1969 and a case
3-L161Sup. Cl/73
•
550
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 S.C.ll.
was registered.: After preliminary ~nquiry under Cb. XVIll
A
Cr. P.C. the appellant was committe4 for trial to the court. of
Session. According to the trial court the following points arose
for detennination :
"l. Whether it is proved that the receipt, Article A
is a forged document ?
2. Whether it is proved thait it is the accused who
forged that receipt with intent .to commit fraud ?
3. Whether it is proved that rthe accused used this
receipt as genuine knowing· it to be forged ?
4. Whether U is proved that he cheated the Bombay
Municipal Corporation, as alleged ?
S. Whether it .is proved that the accused cheated the
Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd., as alleged?"
The conclusions of the trial court on these points were :
"l. Ln the affirmative ..
2. Not proved.
3. In the affirmativ~.
4. In the affirmative.
S. Not proved."
The evidence in this case is mai:i'ln~ not wholly, circumstantial
and about 20 witnosses wer& ex
including a handwriUna
expert. The trial court felt that the case required evaluation of
the evidence of. Bakshi (P.W. 4), Inderjit Singh (P.W. 18) and
Handwriting Expett (P. W. 17) . Driver Balwant Singh was riot
examined in the case. The trial . court in a lengthy judP.Jlent
exhaustively discussed the evidence of these witnesses. It did not
plac.e implicit reliance either on Bakshi (P .W. 4) or on Inderjit
Singh (P.W. 18) 11$ indeed in the testimony of both of them the
trial court found partly' reliable and pattly unreliable statements.
The court did not feel inclined to hold that their evidence was
wholly unreliable. On evaluation' of the evidence of the Hand·
writing Expert the ttial court felt that the receipt in questjon could
not necessarily be held to have beQll forged by the appellant. Afte'r
tDJS 'ObServation follows the following passage ijl tl:!e jUdgment :
"I do not, however, feel that this earns an acquittal
for him. The direct charge regarding the forgery could ·
be taken as not proved we will have however to .weigh
the other evidenco for findin.J out whether he could have
used the document Which JS nece$sarily a fo~ged docu·
ment, as a genuine document. For this Jlurpose we will ·
have to apJ)reciate the evidence of the twO witnesses .
B
c
D
E
p
H
8
c.
0
E
F
RAJENDRAPAUL v •. STATE (Dua, J.)
'
.
about whom I have spoken quite a long time and we
have also to appreciate the interval of time, What
exactly the accused did within that half an hour when
he took the money and returned, will have to bo surmised, particularly ip. the absence of categorical evi·
dence showin¥ that the disputed receipt is executed by
him. The evtdence shows, it is a forged reqeipt. It is
not prepared at tho counter. We may not be sure in
finding out as to who wrote it. The accused may have
had his associates ii he himself has not written it. Considering the way in which coumers are stated to be working, considering the amount involved and the short time
limit when the accused reappeared legitimate payment
across the counter will have to be ruled out. That is not
even suggested on behalf of the accused. He may have
his own collaborators. If we accept the version, which
I do, then it was this receipt which was in the .hands of
the accused that was given over to the driver and from
there bnwards it reached· the firm Messrs Imperial
Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. I feel, the accused ought
to be supposed to be aware that the real payment was
made and what he carried could not be tho real receipt.
It is for this reason that I am feeling that the charge of
using a forged receipt knowing it to be forged could be
brought home to him."
551
The trial court thereafter dealt with the charges of chDating and
ultimately convicted the appellant for offence under ss. 471 read
with 467, I.P.C. and for an ·offence under s. 420, I.P.C. Under
the former he was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment
and a fine of Rs, 500/. with six months' further rigorous imprisonment in case of default. Under. s. 420 he was sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for two years. The substantive sentences were
directed to be concurrent.
The appeal to the High Court was dismissed in limine with
one word "Dismissed".
Before us on appeal by special leave the short point but one
G
of vital importance to the appellant requiring our decision is
whether the High Court was justified oo the facts and circumstances
of this case in unceremoniously dismissing the appeal in limiM
. with one word "Dismissed" without making a speaking order indi·
cating the reasons for the dismissal. The facts briefly stated by °'
and .a close study of the lengthy judgment of the trial court quite
H
clearly show that the appeal in the High Court did raise pointl
which were ID.Ot only arguable but were aJSo substantial requiring
critical scrutiny and serious appraisal and -evaluation of the prosecution evidence and the circumstances of. the case. The impor·
552
SUPREME COURT RBPOR TS
[1973] 3 S,C.ll.
tance of, the opinion of the High Court on arguable points requiring
consideration on appeal iin that court when questions of fact or
law are open to challenge by the appellant was emphasised more
than 20 years ago by this Couit in Mushtak f:t1sseln v. The State
of Bombay(') when Mahajan J., (as he then was) observed at
p, 820:
"With great respect we are however constrained to
observe that it was not right for the High Court to have
dismissed the appeal preferred br, the appellant to that
court summarily, as it certainly raised some arguable
points which required consideration 'though we have not
thought it fit to deal with all of them. In cases which
prima facie raise no arguable issue that course is, ·of
course, justified, but this court would appreciate it if in
arguable cases the summary rejection order gives some
indication of the views of the High Court on the points
raised. Without the opinion of die High Court on such
points in special leave petitions under article 1315 of the
Constitution this Court sometimes feels embarrassed if it
has to deal with those matters without the benefit of that
opinion."
Since then in a series of decisions (quite a number of them reported
and several unreported) this Court has consistently drawn the
attention of the High Courts to the eminent desirability of giving
an indication of their views on the points raised in arguable cases
in accordance with the legal position enunciated by this Court.
Such a course is normal in cases which raise fairly arguable questions of fact or law. In one of the latest decisions of this Court
in K. K. Jain v. State of Mahaiashtra(') some of the earlier
decisions were again noticed and it was considered necessary to
repeat the emphasis laid on ithe. necessity of recording reasons by
the High Court for dismissing appeals raising questions which
cannot be considered to bie unsubsta.ntial or not arguable. In that
decision it was reiterated, inter alio, that reasons prevailing with
the High Court for dismissing the appeal, if recotded, would have
been of valuable assistance to this Court in finally disposing of
the appeal on merits.
Another advantage of recording such
reasons is that the accused-appellant who may not always be
present in court would have the satisfaction of knowing from the
judgment that the points appropriately arising for consideration
in his case were actually argued a.nd only considered by the High
Court while dismissing . his appeal. This would, inter alia, tend
to promote confidence of the parties concerned in our judicial
process. In the present case had lhe High Court recorded its
reasons for dismissing the appeal it would have better enabled
the appellant's lawyer to consider the advisibility of appealing
(!) [1953) S.C.R. 809.
(2) A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 243.
B
c
E
G
H
B
c
D
E
RAJENDRAPAUL v. STATE (Dua, J.)
5 53
under Art. 136 of the Constitution and after filing the appeal
would have afforded valuable assistance both to the counsel appear·
ing in this Coi:rt .and to us in the final disposal of the appeal without
feeling the necessity of remanding the case to the High Court for
re-hearing.
The remand no doubt must result in further delay
in the final disposal of the appellwt's appeal in the High Court and
this indeed is regrettable. But in the absence of the opinion ol
the High Court which that Court was under the law expected to
record we are left guessing abput the line of reasoning the High
Court would have adopted after appropriate scrutiny of the evi·
dence on the record. The appellant is entitled to have a proper
de~ision on the points arising in his appeal by the High Court on
due appraisal of the evidence in accordance with Jaw. The legal
position on the point in .question has been authoritatively settled
and declared by this Court and the same has been frequently reite·
rated in its decisions. The law reports are so full of them that it
appears to us to be somewhat surprising that the counsel appearing
in the appeal in the High Court should have been unaware of it.
It, however, does seem that the attention of ithe High Court was
not drawn to these decisions, for had that Court been apprised of
the law as authoritatively declared by this Court, it is inconceivable
that the present appeal .would still have been dismissed without
indicating the reasons in support of it. Had the High Court recorded reasons the delay necessitated by this remand could have
been avoided. But in the circumstances we have no optioll but
to allow the appeal and remand the case to the High Court for re·
hearing and deciding the appeal after considering the points raised
a.nd recording its reasons in accordance with law. We have taken
care not to express any opinion on the merits of the case either
way.
It is hoped that this appeal would now 1* disposed of by
the High Court expeditiously and without avoidable delay.
SC.
Appeal allowed.
,