LexNAR SINGH AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1954. Dh'ifendra K uma1 Mimdal v. The Superin-· tendtnt and · Remembrancer'. of·Legal ·Affairs_ to the. Government of Wes~ Bengal, and Another.; 1954 M•y5 238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955}: The result therefore is that the trial of the appellant .,,. after the 26th January, 1950, by the Sessions Judge-· with the aid of assessors was bad and must therefore:, be quashed and the conviction set aside. In our opin- . ion, it would not advance the ends of justice if at this: stage a fresh trial by jury is ordered in this case. We· therefore allow the appeal, set aside the conviction of' the appellant and direct that he be set free. Appeal allowed. NAR SINGH AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF VTTAR PRADESH. r [MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN .BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.J Constitution of lm.fia-Articles 134(1) (c) and 136(1)-Certifi- cJ>Je by High Court wrongly .granted under art. 134(J)(c) under wrong vietp of law-Interference by Supreme Court-Special LeaVe under art. 136(1). Out of 24 persons originally tried under sections 302/149 etc. -- LP .C. only three were ultimately convicted by the High Court~ The High Court however by mistake convicted N, one of the three, whom it meant to acquit. Later; it communicated its mistake to Government. Government passed orders remitting the sentence mistakenly passed on N and directed ,his release. N and the oth~r two convicts presented an application under article 134(1)(c) for a ,.. certificate. The High Court granted a certificate to N consideririg that otherwise the stigma of the charge of murder might affect him adversely in the future. As regards the other two, there was nothing in their cas.es to warrant the issue of a certificate but the High Court granted them a certificate thinking that it was boun<j,-t, to do so because article 134(1)(c) speaks of a "case" and the onJy _/ case befOre it was the appeal as a whole. Held, (!) that th.e view of the High. Court 'Yas wronj( becau;e the .word "case" used in article 134( 1) ( c) means the cai,c of ea~h individual person. 'f (2) That the High Court had misdirected itself about the l~w in respect of the two convicts and did not exercise the discretiOn vested in it thinking either that it had no discretion in the matter or that its discretion. was ~ettered and therefore the Supreme Co~ having general' ·powefs of ludicial superintendence over all Courts in India was bound to intcrfeic. ' . I ,.,,_ ....... ~.:...-"-"'~-·~ ~;~-.J. s.c.·R. . SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS 239 (3) Tho appeal must fail as tho certificate under article 134(l)(c) . was ·wrongly granted and in view of the facts the ·case was not I954 . a proper one for special leave under article 136(1) . .. ·. J..tar Singh and Subhanand Chowdhttry v. Apurba Krishna Mitra ([1940] F.C.R. Another 31), Banitrsi Parshad v. Kashi Krishna (28 I.A. 11 at 13), Radha- . v .. krishna Ayyar v. Swaminatha Ayyar (48 I.A. 31 at 34), Radha The State of Uttar l • Krishn Das v. Rai Krishn Chand(28 I.A.182 at 183), Swaminaraya,. Prod.sh. Jethalal v. Acharya Devendraprasadji (A.LR. 1946 P.O. 100, 102),. Bhagbati Dei v. Muralidhar Sahu (A.LR. 1943 P.O. 106, 108) and Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram (I.L.R. 45 Cal. 94, jQ7) referred to. · · . . CmlirrNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1952. · Appeal under Article 134(1)(<i) of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 7th Jl.Iay, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature · at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 350of1950 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated·the 9th March, 1950, of the Court of tile Additional Sessions Judge, Etahin Sessions Trials Nos:l27of1949 and 10of1950. 8. P. Verma for the appellant. C. P. Lal for the respondent. 1954. May 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BosE J.-Twenty·four persons, among them the two appellants, were tried for offences under sections 148, 307 /149 and 302/149, In~ian Penal Code. Sixteen were acquitted and the remaining eight were convicted. On appeal to the High Court five more were acquitted and > the only ones whose convictions were upheld were the two appellants, Nar Singh and Roshan Singh, and one Nanhu Singh. By a curious misreading of the evidence this Nanhu Singh was mixed up with Bechan Singh. What the High Court really meant to do was to convict Bechan Singh and acquit Nanhu Singh. Instead of that they acquitted Bechan Singh and convicted Nanhu Singh. As so
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.