HEM RAJ versus THE STATE OF AJMER

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 1133 · Decided: 17-03-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1133 
and a District Judge could only mean a Judge of the 
High 
Court for 
Rajasthan established 
under 
the 
Rajasthan High Court 
Ordinance 1949 and a District 
Judge of 
or in Rajasthan within the meaning of 
section 5 (ix) of Ordinance No. IV of 1950. 
Accordingly 
we hold that the appointment of Shri Sukhdeo 
Narain 
was perfectly valid. 
We accordingly set aside the 
order of the 
High 
Court but without 
costs, 
as the 
respondent 
is not 
represented. 
Agent for the appellant : R. H. Dhebar. 
HEM RAJ 
(). 
THE STATE OF AJMER 
(And Connected Appeal) 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., VIVIAN BosE 
and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] 
Constitution of India, art. 136(1)-Principles gorcrning the 
exercise of powers by the Supreme Court under art. 136(1)-Confes-
sions-Whether can be corroborated by evidence already in possession 
of police. 
Unless it is shown that execeptional 
and special circumstan~ 
ces exist that substantial and grave injustice has 
been 
done and 
the case in question presents features _of sufficient gravity to war~ 
rant a review of the decision appealed against, the 
Supreme Court 
does not exercise its overriding powers under art. 136 ( 1) of the 
Constitution and the circumstance 
that the 
appeal 
has 
been 
admitted by special leave does not entitle the appellant to open 
out the whole case and contest all the findings of fact and raise 
every point which could be raised in the High Court. 
Even at the 
final hearing only those points can be urged which are fit to be 
urged at the preliminary stage when the leave to appeal is asked 
for. 
·The contention that confession cannot be corroborated by the 
use of materials already in the possession of the police is devoid 
of force. A confession made and recorded even during a trial can 
be corroborated by the evidence already recorded. 
It may .be made 
and recorded in the court of committing magistrate and materia,ls 
already in the possession of the police may be used for purpose ef 
corroboration. 
1954 
Tiu Stat• qf 
Raja.sthan 
v. 
TM Mewar T ,,,_ 
Iii< Mthq J,td., 
, ·Bhilwara 
and Ot/urs. 
Ghulam Ha.son ]. ' 
1954 
Marth 17. 
1954 
Hem Ra]. 
v. 
Till Sta" qf 
-
A.jmer 
Mahajan C. ] 1 
1134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
Queen v. Thompson ([189}] 2 Q.B. 12) and Mata 
Emperor (A.I.R. 1931 Oudh 166) referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Appeals Nos. 58 and 87 of 1953. 
[1954] 
Din v. The 
Criminal 
Appeal by Special 
Leave granted by the 
Supreme 
Court on the 30th June, 1953, from the Judgment and 
Order dated the 25th April, 1953, of the Court of the 
Judicial Commissioner at 
Ajmer in Criminal Appeal 
No. 13 of 1953 and Criminal Reference No. 19 of 1953 
arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 18th 
March, 1953, of the 
Court of the 
Sessions 
Judge 
at 
Ajmer in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1953. 
Appeal by Special 
Leave 
granted by the Suprem~ 
Court on the 27th October, 1953, from the Judgment 
and Order dated the 25th April, 1953, of the Court of 
the judicial Commissioner at Ajmer in Criminal Appeals 
Nos. 14 and 15 of 1953 and 
Criminal 
Reference No. 15 
of 1953 arising out of the 
Judgment and Order dated 
the 18th March, 1953, of the Court of the Sessions Judge 
at Ajmer in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1953. 
Bakhshi Tek Chand (Bhagwan Singh and Rajinder 
Narain, with him) for appellant in 
Criminal 
Appeal 
No. 58 of 1953. 
B. D. Sharma for respondent in· Criminal Appeal 
No. 58 and appellant in Criminal 
Appeal No. 87 of 
1953. 
K. N. Agarwala for .respondent in Criminal Appeal 
No. 87 of 1953. 
1954. March 17. The Judgment of the 
Court was 
delivered by 
MAHAJAN C. J.-Criminal Appeals 
Nos. 58 
and 
87 of 1953 relate 
to 
the 
same 
occurrence, 
and 
arise out of a common 
judgment delivered 
by 
the 
Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer. 
Both 
of them 
are 
before us by special leave granted by this 
court 
on 
· different occasions. 
Unless it is shown that 
exceptional 
and special 
circumstances exist that substantial and grave injustice 
has been 
done 
and the 
case in 
question 
presents 
features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review 
of 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1135 
the decision appealed 
against, 
this 
court 
does not 
.exercise its overriding 
powers 
under 
article 136(1) 
of the 
Constitution 
and the circumstance that because 
the appeal has been admitted by special leave does not 
entitle the appellant to open out the whole 
case and 
contest all the findings of fact and raise every 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.