Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
D.K. Jain
Judgment Date: 2007-06-01
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is disposed of by remanding the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits expeditiously; the parties are to appear before the High Court on 16th July, 2007, and the Chief Justice is requested to list the matter before an appropriate Bench.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sukhdev Singh

Respondents

State of Haryana

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• U.ijal Singh
• J.P. Singh
• A.S. Bahar (for R.C. Kaushik)

Counsels for Respondents

• Roopansh Purohit (for T.V. George)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is an appeal against a conviction under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, by a Sessions Court, which the Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of ex parte. The High Court’s order indicated it was aware that the appellant had not been represented and that the appellant’s counsel had reportedly withdrawn, with a notice to engage another counsel having been issued. The appellant contends that he did not receive any notice of non-appearance and that his former counsel withdrew without informing him. The High Court, uncertain whether proper notice was served, nonetheless proceeded ex parte, and disposed of the appeal. The appellant urges that ex parte disposal on such uncertain footing is improper. The Supreme Court agrees that the High Court should not have proceeded ex parte under these circumstances and directs remand for fresh consideration on merits, expeditiously. It lists the matter for appearance before the High Court on 16 July 2007 and requests listing before an appropriate Bench. The order ultimately disposes of the appeal by remand rather than adjudicating on merits, emphasizing that lack of clear notice or representation requires a merits review rather than ex parte disposal. The matter concerns the ongoing appellate procedure in Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 18)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant submits that no notice was received regarding non-appearance of counsel and that the counsel who had previously appeared withdrew from the case without informing him. Given the High Court’s own uncertainty about whether service of notice occurred, it should not have decided the matter ex parte. The remedy was to remit the case for fresh merits; ex parte disposal prejudices the appellant and thwarts his right to effective representation. The appellant therefore seeks remand for a proper hearing on merits before a Bench that can adjudicate on the issues raised in the appeal.

Contentions of Respondents

The excerpt does not provide detailed, separate submissions by the State; it records that the High Court disposed of the appeal ex parte citing uncertainty about notice of representation. The State’s position appears to rely on the procedural posture—non-appearance and withdrawal of counsel—and the High Court’s responsibility to ensure proper notice, ultimately justifying the necessity of a fresh merits hearing rather than a substantive disposition on the existing record.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

+- A ## SUKHDEV SINGH _v._ ## STATEOFHARYANA ## JUNE I, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] _Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973_ C _Appeal against conviction-Disposed of by High Court_ ex-parte _against accused-Held: In the event of non-appearance of counsel for accused, the High Court should not have taken up the matter_ ex-parte. _Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration on merits._ The accused, who was convicted u/s 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and D Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years by the trial court, filed the instant appeal against the order of the High Court disposing of his appeal _ex-parte._ E It was contended for the appellant that the lawyer who was appearing for him in the High Court had withdrawn from the case without any intimation to the appellant; and no notice was received by the appellant regarding nonappearance. Disposing of the appeals the Court F HELD: Since the High itself was not sure whether notice was served or not, it should not have taken up the matter ex pa rte. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits expeditiously. (Para-511915-Hl CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 049 of G 2005. From the Final Judgmen.t and Order dated 07.07.2004 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 58-SB of 1992. _J_ H 914 _-+_ 915 SUKHDEVSINGHv. STATEOFHARYANA[PASAYAT,J.) WITH A Cr!. M.P. No. 4562 of2007. U.ijal Singh, J.P. Singh and A.S. Bahar (for R.C. Kaushik) for the Appellant. Roopansh Purohit (for T.V. George) for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 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 C 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. D 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. E 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. F 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. G 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 expeditiously. As the matter is pending since long before the High H 916 [2007] 7 S.C.R. _r_ SUPREME COURT REPORTS A 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. B 7. In view of this order, no order is necessary to be passed m Crl.M.P.No.4562 of2007. RP. Appeal disposed of.