LexMUSHTAK HUSSEIN versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COUR'r REPOR1'8 809 19~8 modified and plaintiff will be entitled to damages in the sum of Rs. 93,000 on the 3,000 Indian Iron shares. The decree given to the plaintiff in respect of Rs. 6, 762-8-0 is set aside over and above the decree for Rs. 9,100 in his favour set aside by the High Court. In the calculation of future interest tbe plaintiff will not be allowed interest from 9th March, 1943, to 12th September, 1944. In the result tbe decree given to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 61, 787 is reduced to Rs. 42,17 5. He will get interest at six per cent. per annum from 5th April, 1937, until pttyment or reali- zation except for a period of one year and six months. Plaintiff will get proportionate costs throughout. Trojan ct Co. Appeal allowed in part. Agent for the appellant: Ganpat Rai. Agent for the respondent: M. S. K. Sastri. MUSH'rAK HUSSEIN v. 'rHE S'fATE OF BOMBAY. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, VIVIAN BOSE and JAGANNADHA DAS JJ.] Criminal trial-Charge to jury-Mis-direction-Powers of appellate Court-Power of appellate Court to go into the whole ease to determine whether there has been failure of justice-Practice- Appellate Court-Summary 1·ejection of appeal-D1'ty to state reasons in arguahle cases. In his charge to the jury the Judge told them that the oase before them was a jig saw puzzle with some missing links and directed them to use their ingenuity to piece them together by finding out the probabilities and seeing whether they could success- fully solve the puzzle. Held, this was misdirection in that it in- vited the jury to exercise its ingenuity by having resort, if neces- sary, to speculative reasoning. Where a jury has been mis-directed and bas based its verdict on assumptions and conjectures the Supreme Court may order a retrial or remit the case to the High Court with a direction that it should consider the merits of the case in the light of the deci- sion of the Supreme Court and eay whether there has been a Ltd. v. Rm.N. N. Nagappa Chettiar. Mahajan J. l9~3 March BO. 810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] 1968 failure of justice as a result of the mis-directions, or it may exa- mine the merits of the case and decide for itself whether there MushtakHumin has been a failure of justice in the case. · v. In deciding whether there has in fact been a failure of justice Th• Stat• of in consequence of a mis-direction, the Court is entitled to take the Bombay. whole case into consideration. Abdul Rahman v. Empel'or (A.LR. 1946 Lah. 82) referred to. Though in cases which prima Jacie raise no arguable issue the High Court may dismiss an appeal summarily.without giving any reasons, it is desirable that in arguable cases the High Court should in its summary rejection order give some indication of the views of the High Court on the points raised. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1952. Appeal by special leave granted by the Supreme Court on the 14th February. 1952, from the Order dated the 17th September, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Bavde- kar and Chainani JJ.) in Criminal Appeal No. 1026 of 1951 arising out of Judgment and Order dated the 28th July, 1951, of the Court of the Third Additional Sessions Judge of Poona in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1951. A. S. R. Chari and J. B. Dadachanji for the appel- lant. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India, (Porus A. Mehta, with him) for the respondent. 1953. March 30. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J.-The appellant on 28th July, 1951, was convicted on a charge under section 366, Indian Penal Code, for having kidnapped. at Poona a minor girl Shilavati in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourne and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years after a trial before the third additional Sessions Judge of that place sitting with a jury of five. The jury returned a verdict of guilty by a majority of three to two. The Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the verdict was not perverse. He therefore accepted it. The appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court S C.R SUPREME COURT REPORTS 811 but this, was summarily dismissed. This appeal is be- 1953 fore us by special leave. M ht kH · us a ussein The prosecution case was that on the 12th Decem- v. ber, 1949, the appellant who was a music teacher The State of went to the house of S,hilavat[ and on the pretext Bombay
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.