Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Haryana
- SCC(2007) 15 SCC 238
- Neutral2007 INSC 678
- AIRAIR 2007 SC Supp 1023
- SCR[2007] 7 SCR 914
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a High Court appellate judgment has been delivered ex parte without clear evidence that proper notice was served on the appellant, and the Court itself was uncertain whether notice had been served, the judgment must be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration on the merits, as the absence of notice deprives the appellant of a fair opportunity to be heard.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The appeal was filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa convicting him for offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act') and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Appeal before the High Court was disposed of in the absence of learned counsel for the appellant. The order itself noticed that with the assistance of learned counsel for the State, learned Single Judge perused the records and delivered the judgment.
3. From the order of the High Court it appears that notice was issued to the appellant for engaging another counsel as the High Court noticed that he was not represented. It is noted in the order that there was no evidence to show that the notice was served on the appellant or not, yet the High Court disposed of the matter ex parte.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no notice was received by the appellant regarding non-appearance of his lawyer. In any event the lawyer who was earlier appearing had withdrawn form the case without any intimation to the appellant.
5. Though several other points are raised in support of the appeal, it is not necessary to refer to them. Since the High Court itself was not sure whether notice was served or not, it should not have taken up the matter ex parte. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. As the matter is pending since long before the High Court, let the parties appear before the High Court without further notice on 16th July, 2007. The Hon'ble Chief Justice is requested to list the matter before an appropriate Bench.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
7. In view of this order, no order is necessary to be passed in Crl.M.P.No.4562 of 2007.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free