Kerala HC: Revisional Power U/S 263 Not Invocable When AO Grants Sec 32AC Deduction After Inquiry  ||  J&K&L HC: Section 359 BNSS Doesn’t Limit High Court’s Inherent Power U/S 528 to Quash FIRs  ||  Bombay HC: BMC Ban on Footpath Cooking via Gas/Grill Doesn’t Apply to Vendors Using Induction  ||  Madras HC: Buyer Not Liable for Seller’s Tax Default; Purchase Tax Can’t Be Imposed under TNGST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Oral Allegations Alone Insufficient to Sustain Bribery Charges Against Ministers  ||  Delhi HC: CCI Cannot Levy Interest Retrospectively Before Valid Service of Demand Notice  ||  Delhi HC: VC Rules Don’t Shield PMLA Accused From Physically Appearing Before ED in Probe  ||  SC: If Complaint Reveals Cognizable Offence, Magistrate May Order FIR Registration U/S .156(3) CrPC  ||  SC: Private Buses Can’t Operate on Inter-State Routes Overlapping Notified State Transport Routes  ||  Delhi HC: Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Provisional Attachment When PMLA Remedy Exists    

Siphelele Goodman Nene vs. The State - (05 Sep 2022)

Applicant for grant of special leave to appeal must show that there are special circumstances which merit a further appeal to the court

Criminal

Present is an appeal against the refusal by the high court of the Appellant’s application for leave to appeal to that court against his conviction and sentence. The issue before this Court is whether the Appellant should have been granted leave to appeal to the high court against his conviction and sentence.

In convicting the Appellant of a crime of contravening Section 36 of the Criminal Law Act, 1955, the trial court stated that it was satisfied that the evidence adduced established beyond reasonable doubt that ‘all four accused were travelling in the said Hyundai Accent and that they failed to give a satisfactory account of their possession’. The Appellant argued that the trial court misdirected itself regarding the application of Section 36 of the Act. His contention was that Section 36 is aimed at instances where the state is unable to prove that the goods concerned were indeed stolen, adding further that the state’s difficulty was that the complainant was unable to identify the thieves.

Present Court in S vs. van Wyk held that, an applicant for special leave to appeal must show, in addition to the ordinary requirement of reasonable prospects of success, that there are special circumstances which merit a further appeal to this court. This may arise, when in the opinion of this court, the appeal raises a substantial point of law, or where the matter is of very great importance to the parties or of great public importance, or where the prospects of success are so strong that the refusal of leave to appeal would probably result in a manifest denial of justice.

The Appellant contended that the elements of the crime under Section 36 were not established. Regarding the sentence, the Appellant asserted that the effective sentence of 22 years induces a sense of shock as most of the loot was recovered; the complainant was not harmed during the robbery, and he was relatively young, when the offences were committed. As to the trial court’s conviction on the crime of contravening Section 36 of the Act, the Supreme Court held that the trial court’s finding that the Appellant had failed to give account of his possession of the Hyundai Accent motor vehicle could not be supported in the absence of evidence by the police that after his arrest, the appellant was asked to give an account of his possession of the Hyundai Accent and that he failed to give a satisfactory account of such possession as this needed to be established for a conviction under Section 36 to be sustained. On the facts of the case, it could be said that the Appellant does have reasonable prospects of success, and the high Court should have granted him leave to appeal.

Tags : CONVICTION   LEAVE TO APPEAL   GRANT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved