JUDGMENT Chinappa Reddy, J. - Special leave Granted. 2. The appeal of the accused to the High Court was dismissed summarily with the one word dismissed, placing this Court in a most embarrassing position in dealing with the special leave petition under Art. 136 of the Constitution. Such summary rejection of appeals by the High Court has been disapproved by this Court more than thirty years ago in Mushtaq Hussain v. State of Bombay,1 and thereafter, over the years, in a series of cases from the same High Court Ramayya v. State of BOmbay2, Vishwanath Shankar Beldar v. Maharastra3, Siddanna Appa Roo v. State of Maharashtra4, Narayan Nathu Naik v State of Maharashtra5, Govinda Kadutji Kodam v. State of Maharashtra6, Shaik Mohammed Ali v. State of Maharashtra7, K. K. Jain v. State of Maharashtra8, Jeewan Prakash v. State of Maharashtra9, Mushraq Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra10, Kishna Vithu Suroshe v. State of Maharashtra11, Sampat a Tatyada Shinde v. State of Mahardshtra12, Dagadu v. State of Maharashtra13. We are pained, and not a little perturbed, that despite the long series of judgments an arising from cases from the same High Court, the High Court has not chosen to correct itself and continues in the error of its ways. Except in certain cases when an accused person has pleaded guilty and in petty cases, every person convicted of an offence has a right of appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code. An appeal may be both against conviction and sentence and on facts and law. A convicted person is entitled to ask an appellate Court to reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion. An appellate Court has the undoubted power to dismiss an appeal in limine. Section 384 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for it. But, it is a power which must be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection. One would think a conviction for murder and a sentence of imprisonment for life, as in the case before us, were serious enough matters for the High Court to warrant admission of the appeal and fair and independent consideration of the evidence by the High Court. Summary rejection of the appeal with the laconic expression dismissed seems to be a drastic step in such cases. To so reject an appeal is to practically deny the right of appeal. Summary rejection of the appeal with the laconic expression dismissed seems to be a drastic step in such cases. To so reject an appeal is to practically deny the right of appeal. We cannot also over emphasize the importance of the High Court making a speaking order when dismissing a Criminal Appeal in limine. "The requirement of recording reasons for summary dismissal, however concise, serves to ensure prol1er functioning of the judicial process. There must be some indication that the High Court addressed itself to the questions at issue and had the record before it. In the present case there is not even in indication whether the record had been called for and whether it was before the Court. We have little option but to set aside the order of the High Court. The High Court may now admit the appeal and deal with it according to law. Appeal dismissed. 1. 1953 S.C.R. 809 2 A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 287. 3. 1969 (3) S.C.C. 883 . 4. A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 977. 5. A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1656. 6. A.I.R. 1970 S C. 1033. 7. A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 43. 8. A.I.R 1973 S.C. 241. 9. A.I.R 1971 S.C. 278. 10. A.I.R 1973 S.C. 1122. 11. A.I.R. 1914 S.C. 274. 12. A.I.R. 1914 S.C. 791. 13. 1981 Cri. L.J. 724 (S.C.) For Citation : 1983 Crl. L.J. 1497 = AIR 1983 SC 1014 = (1983) 4 SCC 129 = 1983 SCC (Crl.) 786