Article 134(1)(c) certificate requires individual consideration; misdirected grant invalid, while convictions and sentence stood on merits.

The expression "case" in Article 134(1)(c) was construed to refer to each individual convicted person's case, and a certificate issued on the mistaken view that the Court had no discretion was invalid. The superior court may examine whether the discretion to grant the certificate was properly exercised, and here the High Court had misdirected itself, so the matter had to be treated as one for special leave. On the merits, the convictions were supported by clear evidence, the finding that more than five persons were involved stood, section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was correctly applied, and no interference with sentence was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "case" in Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India refers to the individual convicted person's case, whether the grant of certificate under that provision was valid, and whether special leave was warranted.

Analysis: The expression "case" in Article 134(1)(c) was held to mean the case of each individual person, not the appeal as a whole. A certificate issued on the mistaken view that the Court had no discretion is invalid because the discretion to grant it is judicial and must be exercised on proper legal principles. The superior Court may examine whether that discretion was actually and properly exercised. On the facts, the High Court had misdirected itself, so the certificate could not stand and the matter had to be treated as one for special leave. On special leave, the convictions rested on clear evidence, the finding that more than five persons were involved remained intact, the application of section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was justified, and there was no ground to interfere with sentence.

Conclusion: The certificate was wrongly granted, special leave was not justified, and the appellants were not entitled to interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed after holding that the High Court had erred in granting a certificate under Article 134(1)(c), but that no case for special leave or interference on merits was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: A certificate under Article 134(1)(c) must relate to each individual convict's case, and a superior court may set aside a certificate granted on a misdirection that the High Court had no discretion to refuse it.

---