LexBUDHAN CHOUDHRY AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- -t - ' • :S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1045 held against the appellant on this contention. The 1earned Judges of the High Court were of the opinion that as the execution and attestation took place at one sitting at the residence of P.W. 1, where the testa- tor and the witnesses had assembled by appointment, they must all of them have been present until the matter was finished, and as the witnesses -were not -cross-examined on the question of attestation, it could properly be inferred that there was due attestation. It cannot be laid down as a matter of law that be- cause the witnesses did not state in examination-in- ·chief that they signed the will in the presence of the testator, there was no due attestation. It will depend -0n the circumstances elicited in evidence whether the attesting witnesses signed in the presence of the testa- tor. This is a pure question of fact depending on appreciation of evidence. The finding of the Court below that the will was duly attested 1s based on a ·consideration of all the materials, and must be ac- cepted. Indeed, it is stated in the judgment of the Additional District Judge that "the fact of due execu- tion and attestation of the will was not challenged on behalf of the caveator at the time of the hearing of the suit". This contention of the appellant must .also be rejected. In the result, the decision of the High Court is confirmed, and this appeal 1s dismissed, but m the -circumstances, without costs. Appeal dismissed. BUDHAN CHOUDHRY AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF BIHAR. [ME.HAR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs, V1VIAN BosE, BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] Constitution of India, Al'ticle 14-Code of Criminal Procedure ~ (Act V of 1898), section 30-Whether ultra vires the Constitution- Article 14-Reasonable classification-Not forbidden-Test of per- missible classification-Necessary conditions-Constitution-Whether N ar-.sh Charan Das Gupta v. Paresh Cha an Das Gupta Venkatarama Ayyar J. 1954 December ~ 1954 Budhan Chaudhry and Othm v. The State of BihM 1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] assures unanimity of decisions or immunity from erroneous ~ction of courts or executive agencies of State. It is well-settled that while Article 14 of the Constitution for~ bids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the· test of pern1issible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible diff- erentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped to- gether from others left out of the group; and, (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases; namely geographical, or accord· ing to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is· tltat there must be nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. Further Article 14 cond~mns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of • procedure. The Constitution does not assure unanimity of d~cisions or immunity from merely erroneous action, whether by .the courts or the executive agencies of a State. Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not infringe the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India ([1950] S.C.R. · 869), The State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara ([1951] S.C.R. 682), The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar ([1952] S.C.R. 284), Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra ([1952] S.C.R. 435), Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja v. The State of Bombay ([1952] S.C.R. 710), Qasim Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad (f1953] S.C.R. 581). Habeeb Mohamad v. The State of Hyderabad ([1953] S.C.R. 661), The State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh ([1953] S.C.R. 254), Yick Wo v. Peter Hopkins ( f1886] 118 U.S. 356; 29 L. Ed. 220), and Snowdm v. Hughes ([19441 321 U.S. l; 88 L. Ed. 497), referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRismcnoN : Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 1953. Appeal under article 132 ( 1) of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 25th August 1953 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 1951. B. K. Saran and M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.