KAKULA SRINIVASA RAO Vs. STATE
LAWS(APH)-1955-3-24
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 30,1955

KAKULA SRINIVASA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CHORAGUDI VENKATADRI V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANA V. KESAPPA [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
HEM RAJ DEVILAL VS. STATE OF AJMER [REFERRED TO]
DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS LIMITED VS. COMMR OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
M S SHERIFF VS. M GOVINDAN [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VS. A K GOPALAN [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BATHULA KRISHNA BRAHMAM VS. DARAM CHENCHI REDDY [LAWS(APH)-1958-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
GURBHAIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1983-11-7] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Umamakeswaram, J. - (1.)This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution. Article 134 (1) (c) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India, if the High Court certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. The terms of Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution and section 109 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure are in identical terms. Bose, J., in delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, observed as to the scope of Article 134 (1) (c) as follows :
"In the case of clause (a) both of Article 133 (1) and Article 134 (1), the only condition is the discretion of the High Court but the discretion is a judicial one and must be judicially exercised along the well-established lines which govern these matters (Bernard Panhad v. Kashi Krishna); also the certificate must show on the face of it that the discretion conferred was invoked and exercised ; Radha- krishna Ayyar v. Swaminithn Ayyar and Radlia Krishn Das v. Rai Krishn Chand."

(2.)In the Privy Council decision referred to by Bose, J., viz., in Banarsi Parshad v. Kashi Krishna, Lord Hobhouse stated that the High Court should grant a certificate only in special cases. His observations are as follows :
"That is clearly intended to meet special cases ; such for example, as those in which the point in dispute is not measurable by money, though it may be of great public or private importance. To certify that a case is of that kind, though it is left entirely in the discretion of the Court is a judicial process which could not be performed without special exercise of that discretion, evidenced by the fitting Certificate."

(3.)This decision was followed by the Privy pouncil in Radha Krishn Das v. Rai Krishn Chand. In Radhakrishna Ayyar v. Swaminatha Ayyar3, Lord Buckmaster reiterated that the conditions that regulate the granting of a certificate for leave to appeal have been clearly stated in the Privy Council decisions referred to supra. Referring to the scope of section 109 (c) he observed as follows :
"This does not cover the whole ground of appeal, because it is plain that there may be Certain cases in which it is impossible to define in money value the exact character of the dispute ; there are questions, as for example those relating to religious rights and ceremonies, to caste and family rights, or such matters as the reduction of the capital of companies as well as questions of wide public importance in which the subject-matter in dispute cannot be reduced into actual terms of money. Sub-section (c) of section 109 of the Civil Procedure Code contemplates that such a state of things exists, rule 3 of Order 45 regulates the procedure."

;


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