Atimani & Anor. v. R. Crim. App. 419/13-D-70; 9/9/71; Biron J.

Atimani & Anor. v. R. Crim. App. 419/13-D-70; 9/9/71; Biron J.

The two appellants were convicted of robbery with violence and assault. Their appeals were summarily rejected but the sentences were enhanced. The question was whether the appellate court has power to enhance a sentence on a summary rejection of an appeal according to sections 317 and 318 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Held: (1) “Giving the words of the sections their plain and ordinary meaning, which is the cardinal canon o construction, it is abundantly clear that when an appeal comes before a judge for admission to hearing or otherwise, there are one of two courses open to him. He can wither admit the appeal to hearing, when it will be duly death with and determined in open court, or he can reject it summarily, that is , literally throwing it out in limine, in other words, not admitting it to consideration. In such cases, as the appeal has not been admitted to consideration, there is nothing that the judge can do either in respect of the conviction or the sentence, but his powers are limited to rejecting it summarily.” (2) Order enhancing sentences vacated sentences imposed by convicting court undisturbed.