JANARDAN REDDY AND OTHERS versus THE STATE

Citation: [1950] 1 S.C.R. 940 · Decided: 14-12-1950 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
1950 
OhiranjitzaZ 
Ohowdhuri 
v. 
The Union of 
India and 
OthtJTS. 
DasJ. 
1950 
Dec. 14, 
940 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1950] 
and their shareholders and has penalised this particular 
company and its shareholders, leaving out other com-
panies and their shareholders who may be equally 
guilty of the alleged vice of mismanagement and 
neglect of the type referred to in the preambles. In 
my opinion the legislation in question infringes the 
fundamental rights of the petitioner and offends against 
article 14 of our Constitution. 
The result, therefore, is that this petition ought to 
succeed and the petitioner should have an order m 
terms of prayer (3) of the petition with costs. 
Petition dismissed . 
Agent for the.petitioner: M. S. K. Aiyengar . 
Agent for opposite party Nos. 1 & 2: P.A. Mehta. 
Agent for opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 and 7 to 10: 
Rajinder Narain. 
J ANARDAN REDDY AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE. 
[SHRI HARILAL KANIA C.J., SA!YID FAZL ALI, 
PATANJALI SASTRI, MUKHERJEA, DAS and 
CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.J 
Constitution of India, Arts. 134, 136, 374(4)-Special leave to 
appeal-Judgment of Hyderabad High Court passed before !16th Jan. 
1950-Application for special leave-1'.faintainability-Pendency of 
application for leave to appeal to Judicial Committee of Hyikrabad 
when new constitution came into force, effect of-Scope of Art. 136-
" Any court or tribunal in the territory of India "-Interpretation of 
•tatute.-Presumption of prospective operation--Right to appeal. 
The petitioners, who v.·ere convicted and sentenced to death 
by a special tribunal in the Hyderabad State, preferred appeals 
to the High Court of Hyderabad which were dismissed, and they 
applied to the.High Court on the 21st Jan., 1950, for leave to appeal 
to the Judicial Committee of Hyderabad against the judgments of 
the High Court. On the 26th Jan., 1950, the Constitution of 
India came into force and under the Constitution, Hyderabad be-
came a part of India, the Judicial Committee of Hyderabad ceased 
to exist, and all appeals and other proceedings pending before that 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
941 
Committee stood transferred to the Supreme Court of India. 
The 
1950 
applL~ntions of the petitioners were amended so as to 1nake them 
-
applications under Art. 134 of the Constitution, but they wereJana?"dan Reddy 
dismissed on the ground that no such petitions lay under Art. 
and Others 
134 and also on the merits. 
The p!3titioners thereupon made 
v. 
an application to the Supreme Court of India under Art. 136 of 
The State. 
the Constitution for special leave to appeal: 
Held that, inasmuch as Art. 136 confers power on the Supreme 
Court to grant special leave to appeal only from any judgment, 
decree, sentence or order passed or made by " any court or tri-
bunal in the territory of India," and the Hyderabad High Comt 
was not a Court in the territory of India when the judgments in 
question were pronounced the Supreme Court bad no jurisdiction 
to grant special leave. 
· 
Art. 136 cannot be so construed as to apply to judgments or 
orders pronounced before Hyderabad became part of India and tc 
confer a right of appeal inferentially, merely because the petition-
ers bad a right to appeal to the Judicial Committee of Hyderabad 
when the Constitution came into force and they had been deprived 
of this right by the abolition of that Committee without making a 
provision enabling them to appeal to the Supreme Court. 
APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Criminal) : Criminal Mis. 
cellaneous Petitions Nos. 71 to 73 of 1950. 
Petitions under Art. 136 of the Constitution praying 
for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from 
the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Hydera-
bad dated 12th, 13th and 14th December, 1949, dis-
missing the appeals preferred by the petitioners against 
orders of the Special Tribunal of Hyderabad con\'icting 
them of murder and sentencing them to death. 
The 
material facts and arguments of the counsel appear 
from the judgment. 
D. N. Pritt (K. B. Asthana, Daniel Latifi, Bhawa 
Shiv Charan Singh and A. S. R. Chari, with him) for 
tbe petitioners. 
M. C. Setalvad, .Attorney-General for India, and 
Raja Ram Iyer (G. N. Joshi, with them) for the res-
pondent. 
1950. December 14. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
KANIA C.J.-These are three criminal miscellaneous 
Kania c. J. 
petitions asking for special leave to appeal to the 
-
- ·-------------------------
942 
, 
' 
SUPREME .COURT REPORTS 
\

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