Netraj Singh Vs. State of M.P.

Netraj Singh vs State of M.P.

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Supreme Court of India Decided Mar 22, 2007

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/676836

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/676836
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: Arijit Pasayat and; R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 22, 2007
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 10384/2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 1006/2006
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Practice and Procedure-Change of counsel-Name of new counsel not reflecting in cause list- Nonappearance of counsel - Sections 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Appellant was tried for offences punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 149 - Trial Court found the evidence to be inadequate and held the accused...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 149 and 302

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Netraj Singh

Advocate R.P. Gupta, Sr. Adv.,; Parmanand Gaur and; Jamshed Bey, A

Respondent

State of M.P.

Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 149 and 302
Reported In: AIR2008SC14; 2007(4)SCALE601; 2007AIRSCW6007; (2007)2Crimes402(SC)

Court's Analysis

Prior History: From the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2006 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 1992

Excerpt

practice and procedure-change of counsel-name of new counsel not reflecting in cause list- nonappearance of counsel - sections 149, 302 of the indian penal code, 1860 - appellant was tried for offences punishable under section 302 r/w section 149 - trial court found the evidence to be inadequate and held the accusedappellant not guilty - high court proceeded to hear the appeal in the absence of the counsel and reversed the order of acquittal and held the appellant guilty of charged offences - during pendency of appeal, appellant filed an application for permission to change the counsel, which was allowed - cause list for the concerned day did not reflect the name of the new counsel due to which appellant was un represented - held, since the name of the counsel who had been permitted to appear on behalf of the present appellant was not reflected in the cause list, obviously the appellant has been prejudiced - matter remitted to the high court for fresh consideration - appeal partly allowed. - code of criminal procedure, 1973.[c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 378: [dr. arijit pasayat & r.v. raveendran, jj] appeal against acquittal appeal heard in absence of counsel of accused non-appearance of counsel due to mistake in cause list held, order reversing acquittal liable to be set aside. matter remitted to high court for fresh considerations......one mr. ashutosh singh, advocate to appear on his behalf in place of mr. anil nima who was earlier appearing at the time of hearing. by order dated 31.1.2005 the application was allowed and the court granted permission to mr. ashutosh singh to appear on behalf of the appellant in place of earlier counsel. but in the cause list for the concerned day in respect of the appeal, the name of earlier counsel appeared. according to learned counsel for the appellant in view of the aforesaid position, the appellant was unrepresented. learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the factual position as stated by the appellant. 4. since the name of learned counsel who had been permitted to appear on behalf of the present appellant was not reflected in the cause list, obviously the appellant has been prejudiced. this is a case where the order of acquittal passed in favour of the appellant has been reversed by the impugned judgment of the high court. 5. in the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the order of the high court and remit the matter for fresh consideration. to avoid unnecessary delay, let the parties appear before the high court on 13th april, 2007 so that appropriate orders can be passed by the concerned bench. the name of mr. ashutosh singh who was permitted to appear on behalf of the present appellant by order dated 31.1.2005 shall be indicated in the cause list and not the name of learned counsel who was earlier appearing. we make it clear that by remitting the matter to the high court for fresh consideration we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 6. the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Full Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial Judge i.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur. Appellant was tried for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The trial Court found the evidence to be inadequate and held the accused-appellant not guilty and accordingly directed the acquittal.

2. The State preferred an appeal questioning the said order of acquittal. It appears that the matter was listed for hearing on 1.5.2006. There was no appearance on behalf of the present appellant who was the respondent in the appeal before the High Court when the matter was taken up for final hearing. The High Court proceeded to hear the appeal in the absence of learned Counsel and reversed the order of acquittal and held the appellant guilty of charged offences.

3. It is the stand of learned Counsel for the appellant that during the pendency of the appeal the appellant filed an application for permission to change the counsel and sought permission to engage one Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Advocate to appear on his behalf in place of Mr. Anil Nima who was earlier appearing at the time of hearing. By order dated 31.1.2005 the application was allowed and the Court granted permission to Mr. Ashutosh Singh to appear on behalf of the appellant in place of earlier counsel. But in the cause list for the concerned day in respect of the appeal, the name of earlier counsel appeared. According to learned Counsel for the appellant in view of the aforesaid position, the appellant was unrepresented.

Learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute the factual position as stated by the appellant.

4. Since the name of learned Counsel who had been permitted to appear on behalf of the present appellant was not reflected in the cause list, obviously the appellant has been prejudiced. This is a case where the order of acquittal passed in favour of the appellant has been reversed by the impugned judgment of the High Court.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter for fresh consideration. To avoid unnecessary delay, let the parties appear before the High Court on 13th April, 2007 so that appropriate orders can be passed by the concerned bench. The name of Mr. Ashutosh Singh who was permitted to appear on behalf of the present appellant by order dated 31.1.2005 shall be indicated in the cause list and not the name of learned Counsel who was earlier appearing. We make it clear that by remitting the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 2007 Same Parties Netraj Singh vs State of M.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Arijit Pasayat and; R.V. Raveendran, JJ. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 149 and 302

Criminal