HABIB MOHAMMED Vs. HYDERABAD STATE
LAWS(APH)-1950-12-2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 02,1950

HABIB MOHAMMED Appellant
VERSUS
HYDERABAD STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is a petn. on behalf of the accused for the grant of leave to appeal to S. C. under Article 134 (1) (c), Const. Ind, According to the provisions of Article 134 (1) (c) it is necessary that this Ct. should certify that the case is a fit one for appeal to S. C, Mr. Rahman, counsel on behalf of the accused, argues that as no rules have bean framed either by this Ct. or by S. C. under Article 145, Clause (d), Const. Ind. no restrictions or limitations can be placed and the petnr. would be entitled to a certificate in view of the fact that the petnr, is sentenced to death. Further, he contends that before the Const, came into force there was no statutory right of appeal in or. cases while after the passing of the Const. Ind. the right to appeal is not only extended but in Criminal cases the accused has got a statutory right to appeal, In this connection, it was further argued that in so far as the right to appeal is concerned there is no distinction in or. or civ, appeals. The only point to be considered for grant; of certificate is whether there is a substantial question of law involved and the case is a fit one for appeal to S. C.
(2.) MR. Rajaram Iyer, on behalf of Govt. , contends that though no rules have been framed by this Ct. or by S. C. but S. C. in a recent case, Pritam Singh v. The State, a. I. B. (87) 1950 S. C. 169: (51 Cr. L. J. 1270), has laid down certain principles in connection with the grant of leave to appeal which are useful as furnishing a sound basis in considering the petn. From a perusal of this ruling, we find that S. 0. has laid down that it will not grant a special leave for appeal in or. cases unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done, and that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against, as it would be opposed to all principles and precedents if S. C. were to constitute itself into a third Ct. of fact and after reweighing the evidence, come to a conclusion different from that arrived at by the trial Judge and H. 0. These principles, in our opinion, are not only binding on us according to the provisions of Article 141 of the Const. Ind. , but are useful as furnishing a Bound basis in considering the petn. Mr. Rahman on behalf of the accused, argues that what S. C, laid down in Pritam Singh v. The State MANU/sc/0015/1950 , AIR1950 SC 169 , 1950 Crilj1270 , [1950 ]1 SCR453 is nothing new and it applies to the powers of S. G. and not H. C. , and as such it does not in any way affect the powers of H. C. In this connection, he contended that the older P. C. decisions were also to that effect, bat in spite of it appeals were admitted and decided by P. C. on merits. We do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel. In this connection, we would like to make a few observations relating to the powers of this Ct. to grant leave to appeal in or. oases.
(3.) THE relevant Articles of the Const, dealing with the appellate jurisdiction of S. C. are Articles 132 to 136. Article 132 applies both to Civ, and Cr. cases, and it lays down that an appeal shall lie to S. C. from any judgment, decree or final order of H. C. . . . whether in a Civ. , Cr. or other proceedings, if H. C. certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Const, Article 133 deals with the appellate jurisdiction of S. C. in Civ. matters only and it is on the lines of Sections 109 and 110, C. P. C. Article 134 constitutes S. C. as a Ct. of Cr. appeal, but this right of appeal is restricted to a limited class of cases only and does not imply that an appeal would lie to S. C. as a matter of course or right but in oases specified therein. Article 135 merely provides that 8. C. shall have jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter to which Articles 133 and 134 do not apply if jurisdiction and powers in relation to that matter were exercisable by F. C. immediately before the commencement of the Const, under any existing law. Article 136 relates to special leave to appeal by 8. C. This article is general and is not confined to merely cr. cases as the words used are "appeal from any judgment, decree, sentence, or order", but as we are not concerned with this Article , we do not wish to discuss the same in detail.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.