CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2013 › Sunder v. State of U.P.

Sunder v. State of U.P.

Supreme Court of India · 23 August 2013

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
23 August 2013
Case no.
Crl.A. No. 1258 of 2013
Bench
H.L. Dattu, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

JUDGMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2013 (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.2163 OF 2013) SUNDER & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

1.
Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1104 of 1981, dated 19.11.2012.

3. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused–appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court. Since the accusedappellants could not engage the services of a lawyer, the High Court had provided an amicus curaie to the accused-appellants to argue the case on their behalf.

5. On the date when the matter was fixed for hearing, the amicus curiae was not present before the High Court. The Court, without appointing/providing a new amicus curiae, has proceeded to pass the final orders on merits and thereby has partly confirmed the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

JUDGMENT

:2:

6. In our considered view, at the time of the hearing the appeal, if, for any reason, the amicus curiae was not present before the Court, the Court either should have adjourned the matter or should have appointed a new amicus curiae to assist the accusedappellants. Since that has not been done by the High Court, in our considered opinion, the orders of the High Court become vitiated. In this view of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the orders passed by the High Court and remand the matter back to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Needless to say that it can either avail the assistance of the already appointed amicus curiae or appoint a fresh amicus curiae to assist the accused-appellants.

7. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

8. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Ordered accordingly.

...........................J.

(H.L. DATTU)

...........................J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 23, 2013

Ask CaseMinister about Sunder v. State of U.P.

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp