Emperor Vs. Chandra Krishna

.....and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. - 2. secondly, the learned sessions judge says in his reference that one reason for referring the case is that he is not at all satisfied that the jury have come to a sound conclusion in convicting so many of the accused, because in his opinion, the evidence of identity is not above suspicion......j.1. we cannot accept the reference as it stands because, as has been pointed out by mr. branson, the learned, counsel for accused no. 8, the learned sessions judge has not complied with the requirements of section 307 of the criminal procedure code. this has fairly been admitted by the learned advocate general who appears before us for the complainant. in the first place the learned sessions judge does not say in this reference in clear and unambiguous terms what is the offence which has, in his opinion, been committed by the accused, and on what grounds in that respect, he differs from the jury. we think that, when a reference of this kind is made by a sessions judge, he should state with some fulness his view of the evidence and the credibility of the more important witnesses, because, not being in a position to pronounce any opinion upon the demeanour of the witnesses this court has to attach more or less weight to the opinion of the judge who of and heard the witnesses. 2. secondly, the learned sessions judge says in his reference that one reason for referring the case is that he is not at all satisfied that the jury have come to a sound conclusion in convicting so many of the accused, because in his opinion, the evidence of identity is not above suspicion. and then he asks this question. why should accused nos. 5. 10. 11, 12 be favoured more than accused nos. 467? that again, leaves, the whole matter in some obscurity. it is impossible to gather from it with certainty which of the accused persons were and who were not in his opinion guilty. thirdly, the learned sessions judge does not state whether in his opinion the accused are guilty of theft or of dasoity or of robbery. we cannot therefore accept the reference as it stands. when the case goes back to the learned sessions judge he must deal with it according to law. if he thinks he does not agree with the jury and is of opinion that there has been the offence of robbery or dacoity committed, then he.....