LexRADHA PRASAD SINGH versus GAJADHAR SINGH & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 663 ready for instant use near the confined space arises as r959 soon as a person is about to enter it, obviously with the C'. bh--:-H "d .. fh . s.1: h d '"nuaiarias perm1ss10n o t e occupier. o iar as t e secon part v. is concerned, it is the duty of the occupier to see that The state of the apparatus is always available in the factory and is Bombay periodically examined and certified fit for use and a sufficient number of persons are trained in its use. The WanC"hoo J. view taken by the magistrate of the effect of this section is not correct and the view taken by the High Court is right except that it is not necessary to keep the apparatus all the time near the confined space. The High Court has ordered retrial with respect to the contravention of sub-s. (4) also and the magistrate who now retries the case will do so in accordance with the construction of the sub-section given by us. We have carefully refrained from saying anything on the facts of this case as there is going to be a retrial and it will be for the magistrate to consider all the facts and circum- stances before coming to a decision one way or tho other. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed. RADHA PRASAD SINGH v. GAJ ADHAR SINGH & OTHERS (S. R. DAs, C.J., M. HrnAYATULLAH and K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) Appellate Court, power of-Reversal of finding of fact arrived at by trial Court-Question of credibility of witness-Rule. Although it is well-settled that a court of appeal should not lightly disturb a finding of fact arrived at by the trial Judge who had the opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witnesses and hearing them, that does not mean that an appellate court hearing an appeal on facts can never reverse such a finding. Where the decision on a question of fact depends on a fair consider- ation of matters on record, and it appears to the Appeal Court that important considerations have not been taken into account and properly weighed by the trial Judge, aud such..considerations clearly indicate that the view taken by the trial Judge is wrong, it is its duty to reverse the finding even if it involves the dis- believing of witnesses believed by the trial court. Where again the trial Judge omits to properly weigh or take into account I959 September 7. 1959 Radha Prasad Singh v. Gajadhar Singh and Others 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] important considerations bearing on the credibility of witnesses or the probability of their version, which point the other way, it is the duty of the court of appeal to reverse the findings of the trial Court. If the questi0n of fact does not solely depend on the credibi- lity of witnesses for its determination, but is one of inference from proved facts, on a consideration of probabilities, the court of appeal stands in the same position as the trial court and is free to reverse its findings. Shunmu.garoya Mudaliar v. Manikka Mudaliar, (r909) L.R. 36 I.A. r85; Coghlan v. Cumberland, (18q8) l Ch. 704; Watt (Thomas) v. Thomas, (1947) l All E.R. 582; Bonmax v. Austin Motor Co. Ltd. (r955) r All E.R, 326; Sarju Pershad v. Raja Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh, (r95r) LL.R. 43 Cal. 833 and Laljee Mahomet v. Girlder, [1950] S.C.R. 781, referred to. Consequently, where, as in the present case, the plaintiff brought a suit for pre-emption and the question for determination was one of fact, namely, whether the plaintiff had performed the essential ceremonies of Talab-E-Mowasibat and Talab-E-Ishtashad, and the trial court believed his witnesses, not because it had been impressed by their demeanour, and the High Court in appeal dis- believed them in the light of the probabilities of the case and reversed the decision of the trial court. Held, that it was not correct to contend that the way in which the High Court had approached the case was wrong or that its decision was not justified. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1954. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 8, 1949 of the Patna High Court, in Appeal from Original Decree No. 116 of 1947, arising out of the judgment and decree dated the :February 28, 1947, of the Sub- Judge at Begusarai in 'fitle Suit No. 14/14 of 1944/45. L. K. Jha and B. K. Sinha, for the appellant. G. S. Pathak, B. Sen, B. K. Saran and R. 0. Prasad,, for respondent No. 1. S. D. Sekhri, for re8pondents Nos. 3 and 4. 1959. September 7.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.