9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (5) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... misreading of the evidence this Nathu 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 soon as the learned High Court Judges realised their mistake they communicated with the State Government and an order was thereupon passed by that Government remitting the sentence mistaken passed on Nanhu and directing that he be released. 3. This occasioned an application under Article 134(1) (c) of the Constitution by Nanhu Singh and the two appellants Nar Singh and Roshan Singh for a certificate. The High Court rightly considered that the certificate should issue in the case of Nanhu Singh becaus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrong in thinking that it was. 4. Having obtained the certificate Nanhu did not appeal and the only ones who have come up here are the two convicts. Had they come up independently and presented a petition for special leave under Article 136 their petition would at once have been dismissed because there is nothing special in their cases to justify an appeal under that Article. The evidence against them is clear and it has been believed, accordingly, following our usual rule, we wold have rejected the petition 'in limine'. But, it was contended on their behalf that having obtained a certificate we have now become an ordinary Court of appeal and are bound to hear their case as an appellate Court both on facts and on law. Reliance wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rishna, Chand', 28 Ind App 182 at p. 183. If it is properly exercised on well-established and proper lines, then, as in all questions where an exercise of discretion is involved, there would be no interference except on very strong grounds : - 'Swaminarayan Jethalal v. Acharaya Devendraprasadji', AIR 1946 PC 100 at p. 102 and - 'Bhagbati Dei v. Muralidhar Sahu', AIR 1943 PC 106 at p. 108. But if, on the face of the order, it is apparent that the Court has misdirected itself and considered that its discretion was fettered when it was not, or that it had none, then the superior Court must either remit the case or exercise the discretion itself : - 'Brij Indar Singh v. Kanshi Ram', AIR 1917 PC 156 at p. 159. Thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
