High CourtDivision Bench2012-10-01Appeals disposed of; remitted to the High Court...

IQBAL ABDUL SAMIYA MALEK v. STATE OF GUJARAT

Case / Petition Number:Criminal Appeal No. 1584 of 2012; Crl. A. No. 1585 of 2012

Neutral Citation:[2012] 8 S.C.R. 1012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: P. Sathasivam
Ranjan Gogoi
Judgment Date: 2012-10-01
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court judgment is set aside for not following the proper procedure under Section 386 Cr.P.C. The matter is remitted to the High Court with directions to restore the appeal on its file and dispose of it on merits within six months. The appellants may pursue bail during the remitted proceedings; the overall disposition is that the appeals are disposed of, subject to proper adjudication by the High Court.
Final Disposition: Appeals disposed of; remitted to the High Court for proper disposal in accordance with law within six months; bail can be considered in remand proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Iqbal Abdul Samiya Malek

Respondents

State of Gujarat

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Manoj K. Mishra
• Deepak Mishra
• V.K. Mishra
• Shivpati B. Pandey

Counsels for Respondents

• K. Enatoli Serna
• S. Panclu
• Hemantika Wahi

Case Synopsis & Summary

Iqbal Abdul Samiya Malek v. State of Gujarat concerns a criminal appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC and life imprisonment. The appellants challenge the High Court's disposal of their regular appeals, contending that the court failed to consider the entire record—oral and documentary evidence—and did not apply the elaborate procedure prescribed by Section 386 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, agrees that the High Court's order merely disposed of the appeal without addressing materials, credibility of witnesses, or sufficiency beyond reasonable doubt. It reiterates the established principle that an appellate court must independently examine the evidence and determine whether it can be relied upon and whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court cites Padam Singh v. State of UP and Bani Singh v. State of UP to emphasize that errors in disposal of an appeal cannot substitute for merits-based decision. Accordingly, it sets aside the High Court's judgment, remits the matter to the High Court with a directive to restore the appeal and dispose of it on merits within six months, following Section 386 Cr.P.C. The Court notes the duration of the appellants' confinement (over 11 years) and leaves it to the High Court to consider bail in the remand proceedings. The appeals are disposed of, pending proper adjudication by the High Court.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 386Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 302

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Duty of appellate court to independently examine evidence and determine whether it can be relied upon
Prosecution must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
Section 386 Cr.P.C. procedure must be followed for disposal of appeal

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellants argued that the High Court disposed of the regular appeal without adverting to all materials, including oral and documentary evidence, in violation of the elaborate Section 386 Cr.P.C. procedure. They contended the High Court must independently assess the record, witness credibility, and whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and they sought remand with a prompt, merits-based disposal; they also noted their prolonged incarceration and requested bail considerations in the remand proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly stated in the provided extract. The Supreme Court records the appellants’ grievance and proceeds to evaluate the High Court’s compliance with mandatory procedures.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Padam Singh v. State of U.P.	AIR 2000 SC 361; 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 59	Positive	Relied on in para 3 as authority supporting independent evaluation of evidence and proper disposal of appeals.
Bani Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P.	1996 (4) SCC 720; 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 247	Positive	Relied on in para 3 for the principle that merits-based adjudication is required in appellate disposal.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against IQBAL ABDUL SAMIYA MALEK v. STATE OF GUJARAT and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [2012] 8 S.C.R. 1012 A ## IQBAL ABDUL SAMIYA MALEK _v._ STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 1584 of 2012) B OCTOBER 1, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] - - _Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 386 Criminal_ - - - _appeal Disposal of Procedure for High Court disposing_ - C _of the criminal appeal without adverting to all the materials On appeal, held: The procedure followed by High Court in_ - _disposal of the appeal not acceptable The procedure_ - _prescribed uls. 386 is required to be followed It is the duty of the appellate court to look into the evidence adduced to_ D _arrive at an independent conclusion_ - _Appeal_ - _Criminal Appeal._ E _Padam Singh vs. State of U.P._ AIR 2000 SC 361: 1999 (5) Suppl.SCR 59; _Bani Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P._ 1996 (4). sec· 720: 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 247 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 59 Relied on Para 3 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 247 Relied on Para 3 F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1584 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 18.3.2009 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 207 of G 2003. WITH Crl. A. No. 1585 of 2012. H 1012 IQBAL ABDUL SAMIYA MALEK _v._ STATE OF 1013 GUJARAT Manoj K. Mishra, Deepak Mishra, V.K. Mishra, Shivpati B. Pandey for the Appellant. K. Enatoli Serna, S. Panclu, Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered B ## **ORDER** 1. Heard both sides. 2. Leave granted. c 3. It is the grievance of the appellants/accused that when they filed regular appeal before the High Court challenging the conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment, the High Court without going into all the materials including oral and documentary evidence disposed of their appeal affirming the judgment of the Trial Court. D 4. In view of the above contention, we have gone through the impugned judgment of the High Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, after narrating the case of the prosecution and the defence as well as the order of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellants, without adverting to all the materials, the High Court has merely disposed of the appeal. The procedure followed by the High Court in a matter of this nature is not acceptable. Elaborate procedures have been prescribed under Section 386 of Crl.P.C. for disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Court. E F 5. It is the duty of an Appellate Court to look into the evidence adduced in the case arrive at an independent G conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even it can be relied upon then whether the prosecution can be said to have proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by Appellate Court in drawing inference from H G 1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R. A proved and admitted facts. Further appeal cannot be disposed of without examining records/merits _(Vide Padam Singh Vs. State of U.P, AIR 2000 SC 361 and Bani Singh_ & _Others Vs. State of U.P. 1996 (4)_ SCC, 720. The said recourse has not been followed by the High Court. B 6. In view of the same, without expressing anything on the merits of the claim of either party, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit it to the High Court. We request the High Court to restore the appeal on its file and C dispose of the same as early as possible preferably within a period of six months. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our attention to the fact that the appellants are in jail for a period of more than 11 years and seek for an order of bail from this D Court.Since we are now remitting the matters to the High Court, the appellants are free to make such claim before the High Court. 8. With the above observation, the appeals are disposed E of. K.K.T. Appeals disposed of.