- (1.) THIS is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) MADHO Singh was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, on the 27th February 1954, and sentenced to transportation for life. He presented an appeal through jail, and it was dismissed under Section 421, Cr. P. C. , on the 14th of May 1954. Madho Singh has filed the present application on 7th June 1954, through counsel urging that the appeal be re-heard. In support of the application it was argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the provision of Section 421, Cr. P. C,, was discriminatory and denied equality before the law, and being inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution was void, as declared' by Article 13 of the Constitution.
(3.) SECTION 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is as follows:-" ( 1 ). On receiving the petition and copy under Section 419 or Section 420, the Appellate Court shall peruse the same, and, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, it may dismiss the appeal summarily: provided that no appeal presented under Section 419 shall be dismissed unless the appellant or his pleader has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same. (2) Before dismissing an appeal under this section, the Court may call for the record of the case, but shall not be bound to do so. " it was urged that there was discrimination in the procedure provided for appeals presented by the appellants who were in jail and those who we're not in jail. The other discrimination was between appellants whose appeals were presented through pleaders and those who sent them direct through the jail to the Court. It was urged that the power to dismiss an appeal summarily without affording a reasonable opportunity to the appellant who was in jail. and who might not be able to employ a pleader, had no reasonable basis for a classification, it was urged that the position was incongruous, if, for instance, an appeal was presented by an appellant in jail through a pleader, who subsequently withdrew. Such presentation would be one under Section 419, Cr. P. C. , and the proviso to section 421 (1) would make it incumbent on the Court to give opportunity to the appellant of being heard before dismissal, in which case the appellant would have a further opportunity of engaging a lawyer or appearnig in person in support of his appeal. Again, if an appeal was presented under Section 420, Cr. P. C. , and the appellant after presentation engaged a pleader, it would still be open to the Court to dismiss the appeal summarily without notice to the appellant or his pleader, because the presentation was not under Section 419. It was argued that no harm could come to anybody, if notice of hearing of the appeal was, at any rate, given to the appellant in jail even at the admission stage, and it would be for the appellant in jail to make arrangements for his representation through a pleader, even if his personal attendance may not be considered to be a reasonable expenditure to be incurred by the State. ;