Supreme Court of India
ALIJAN NANHE PEHALWAN QURESHI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- 10 November 1980
- Judges listed
- V.R. KRISHNA IYER
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1981] 1 S.C.R. 1194 · 1980 INSC 211
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
KRISHNA lyER J.-We were not happy at the disposal by the • High Court of a case under s. 302 I.P.C. without a speaking order. After all in so serious a crime as murder, where so severe a sentence as life imprisonment has been inflicted by the trial court and the ap· peal is· as of right, the High Court must indicate in a reasoned judgment that it has applied its mind to the material questions of fact and law. A judgment may be brief but not a blank, especially in a situation such as this. For this reason we should have straightaway set aside the judgment of the High Court and sent .it back for fresh hearing, but under Artide 136 where justice is the paramount consideration we wanted to reduce the delay in the proceedings since there is a sentence of life imprisonment on the petitioner so we directed that the original record be sent for so that counsel on both sides may
p. 1194, margin E
(Krishna Iyer, !.) have the opportunity to peruse the entire case records and make submissions to us as if we were hearing the appeal in the regular course. Counsel have had that facility and have made submissions after perusal of the materials. After a brief hearing counsel for the petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the trial court's judgment was vitrated by any flaw in appreciation of evidence or assessment of probabilities. We, therefore, dismiss the Special Leave Petition after satisfying ourselves that natural just.ice has had its full play. Dismissed. P.B.R. Petition dismissed .
p. 1195