TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1965 (1) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the Pradhan after his election in supporting on behalf of the Gaon Samaj proceedings for encroachment started against the fathers of the appellants sentenced to death. 2. On the day of occurrence Babu Singh Pradhan had gone on cycle to Behjoi to negotiate for the purchase of a Persian wheel. He had has cycle repaired by one Amrik Singh who was examined as a court witness. He was returning to his own village Alpur situated to the North-East of Behjoi at a distance of four miles when he was way-laid, felled from the cycle and fatally attacked by the appellants. The report of the incident was made by his brother Sangram Singh at Behjoi Police Station at 8.30 P.M. Sangram Singh claimed to have accompanied his brother to Behjoi and to be in his company at the time of the assault. He was the principal eye-witness in the case. He gave the time of the assault as 6 P.M. The First Information Report also mentioned the names of Man Sukh (P.W. 9), Ved Ram (P.W. 4) and Jia Lal (P.W. 11) as eye-witnesses. In the Report one Umrao was also named but he was not examined as it was alleged that he had been won over by the defence. 3. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses in support of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d passed a decree against Ved Ram as a Sarpanch and this was accepted to be the probable motive for his false testimony. Man Sukh was not believed because he was a previous "history sheeter". Jia Lal, who had stated that the occurrence took place at 7 P.M., and was consequently declared hostile by the prosecution, was believed by the learned Judge who came to the conclusion that no light was available at that hour for proper identification. The learned Judge was also convinced that there was a delay in the dispatch of the copy of the First Information Report, special report and the case diary, and he was of the opinion that the First Information did not accompany the requisition for postmortem examination sent to the doctor. He was finally of the view that as no independent eyewitness was examined the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused. 5. The two judgment were than laid before Takru, J. who agreed with Mathur, J. in accepting the prosecution case. As a result of his decision the appeals were dismissed. On the application for certificate of fitness the two learned Judges, who had originally heard the appeal, again differed : Mathur, J. was in favour of refusing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Judges composing the Court of Appeal are equally divided in opinion, the case, with their opinions thereon, shall be laid before another Judge of the same Court, and such Judge, after such hearing (if any) as he thinks fit, shall deliver his opinion, and the judgment or order shall follow such opinion." 8. The section contemplates that it is for third Judge to decide on what points he shall hear arguments, if any, and that postulates that he is completely free in resolving the differences as he thinks fit. In our judgment, it was sufficient for Takru J to have said on the question of the First Information Report that he did not consider it necessary to decide the point but if it was necessary he was in agreement with all that Mathur J had said. There was, therefore, a proper decision by Takru J and the certificate could not be based upon the omission to discuss the First Information Report and the doubts about it. 9. It was contended by the State the certificate attempted to reopen questions of fact which must be held to be decided finally by the High Court in concurrence with the Sessions Judge and such a certificate was incompetent in view of the decisions of this Court e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but the question has arisen on a number of occasions in this Court and some of the leading views may be considered. 12. In Haripada Dey v. The State of West Bengal and Anr. [1956]1SCR639 the appellant was convicted under section 411, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment for dishonestly receiving and retaining a motor car which he had reason to believe was stolen. His appeal was dismissed by J. P. Mitter and Sisir Kumar Sen, JJ. He applied for a certificate and according to the practice of the Calcutta High Court the petition was placed not before the Judges who heard the appeal but before another Bench consisting of the Chief Justice and Lahiri J. The Chief Justice passed an elaborate order in the course of which he observed : "In my view a certificate of fitness ought to issue in this case, although the question involved is one of fact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In my view it is impossible not to feel in this case that there has not been as full and fair a trial as ought to have been held. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere tried under sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148, Indian Penal Code and eight were convicted by the Court of Session. On appeal to the High Court five more were acquitted and that left Nar Singh, Roshan Singh and one Nanhu Singh. Their convictions were upheld by the High Court and their sentences were maintained. What had happened in the case of Nanhu Singh may now be stated from the judgment of this Court : "By a curious misreading of the evidence this Nanhu Singh was mixed up with Bechan Singh. What the High Court really meant to do was to convict Bechan Singh and acquit Nanhu Singh. Instead of that they acquitted Bechan Singh and convicted Nanhu Singh. As soon as the learned High Court Judges realised their mistake they communicated with the State Government and an order was thereupon passed by that Government remitting the sentences mistakenly passed on Nanhu and directing that he be released." 16. All the accused applied for a certificate and in view of what had happened and as the conviction of Nanhu Singh on a murder charge was still subsisting a common certificate was granted to all of them. The High Court thought that the word "case" in Art. 134(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng declaration contained in the earlier case was modified. The evidence was examined afresh and the judgment of the High Court was affirmed. 18. These cases illustrate different angles of the problem. There is no doubt whatever that sub-clause (c) does not confer an unlimited jurisdiction on the High Courts. The power gives a discretion but discretion must always be exercised on some judicial principles. A similar clause in Art. 133, which allows appeals in civil cases, has been consistently interpreted as including only those cases which involve a question of general public importance. That test need not necessarily be applied to a criminal case but it is clear that mere questions of fact should not be referred for decision. The Constitution does not contemplate a criminal jurisdiction for this Court except in those two cases covered by cls. (a) and (b) which provide for appeals as of right. The High Court before it certifies the case must be satisfied that it involves some substantial question of law or principle. In a criminal appeal the High Court can consider the case on law and fact and if the High Court entertains doubt about the guilt of the accused or the sufficiency of....