LexHARIPADA DEY versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS HARIPADA DEY v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER. 639 [BHAGWATI, JAFER IMAM and Gov1NDA MENON JJ.] Constitution tJf India, Art. 184(1)(c)-Jurisdiction of High Court-Certificate on mere question of fact no certificate at all- Oonstitution of India, Art. 186(1)-Special Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to intervene on mere question of facts to be invoked -High Oourt not to arrogate that fimction to itself-Evidence- Prosecution not to be blamed for the lacuna to addiu:e evidence by defence. The High Court has no jurisdiction to grant cettifica.te under Art. 134(l)(c) of the Constitution on mere question of fa.ct, e.nd is not justified in passing on such question to the Supreme Court for further consideration, thus converting the Supreme Court into .a. Court of Appeal on facts. No doubt the Supreme Court, in ce.se of gross misca.rrie.ge of justice or departure from legal procedure such e.s vitiates the whole trial, possesses the power a.nd ha.s special jurisdiction to intervene under Art. 136(1) of the Constitution e.nd e.lso if the findings of fa.ct were such e.'s were shocking to judicial conscience; but no High Court can arrogate that function to itself because it finds itself helpless to redress the grievance. Certificate granted on mere question of fa.ct would be no certificate e.t a.II; High Court should refuse sueh certi- ficates under Art. 134(1)(c) e.nd should e.sk the parties to approach the Supreme Court to invoke its special jurisdiction under Art. ' 136(1) of the Constitution. The accused e.nd not the prosecution is to be blamed for the lacuna. in the defence in not adducing evidence in support of his contentions, which if forthcoming would he.ve demolished the ce.se of the prosecution. Narsingh and another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, ([1955) 1 S.C.R. 238), Baladirz cf Others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 181) and Sunder Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 411), referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1954. Appeal under Article 134(l)(c) of the Constitu- tion of India from the judgment and order dated the 27th May 1954 of the Calcutta High Court in Crimi- nal Appeal No. 158 of 1953. 1956 September 5 1956 Haripada Dey v. The State of H'e.st Btngal u nd anotll e-r' 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1956] Sukumar Ghose for the appellant. D. N. Mukeijee for P. K. Bose for respondent No. l. K. L. Arora for respondent No. 2. 1956. September 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J.-The Appellant was charged under Section 411, Indian Penal Code with dishonestly receiving or retaining in his possession one Hillman Car number WED 4514 bearing Engine and Chassis No. All 78482 WSO knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. The learned Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, convicted him of this offence and sentenced him to rigorous imprison- ment for 2 years. The Appellant took an appeal to the High Court at .Calcutta and a Division Bench of the High Court constituted by Mr. Justice Jyoti Prakash Mitter and Mr. Justice Sisir Kumar Sen dis- missed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed upon him. The Appellant filed a peti- tion for leave to appeal to this Court and that peti- tion according to what we ara told is the practice obtaining in the Calcutta High Court came before a Division Bench differently constituted-a Bench con- stituted by the learned Chief Justice and Mr. Justice S. C. Lahiri. This Bench allowed the petition and ordered that a certificate for leave to appeal under article 134(l)(c) of the Constitution may be drawn up. In an elaborate judgment the learned Chief Justice observed: "In my view a certificate of fitness ought to issue in this case, although the question involved is one of fact". After discussing in detail the various circumstances in the case which did not meet with his approval, he wound up by saying: "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 the circumstances, it appears to me that the petitioner is entitled to have - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 641 his case further considered and since such further consideration can only be given by the Supreme Court, I would grant the certificate prayed for". Contrary to what we had in the previous case be- fore us, viz.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.