Emperor Vs. Bai Lali

.....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. - the learned judge disagreed with the verdict of the jury and has, therefore, referred the mater to us under section 307. 2. it has been laid down many times by high courts in india that on a reference under section 807 the high court cannot interfere unless satisfied that the verdict of the juryis perverse, that is to say, the court must come to the conclusion on a perusal of the evidence that no jury could really have entertained any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. trial by jury in this country is comparatively modern and juries like other people have to learn their job......cannot interfere unless satisfied that the verdict of the juryis perverse, that is to say, the court must come to the conclusion on a perusal of the evidence that no jury could really have entertained any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. it is, i think, important that the principle should be adhered to that the high court will not interfere with the verdict of a jury merely because on a persual of the evidence the judges think that they would have come to a different conclusion from that at which the jury arrived. trial by jury in this country is comparatively modern and juries like other people have to learn their job. they have to learn that the responsibility for deciding questions of fact rests upon them, and if they believe that the high court will readily interfere with their verdict, it is likely that that belief will tend to take away from them the sense of responsibility which they ought to possess. [his lordship then dealt with the facts of the case, and in the result did not accept the reference.]broomfield, j.3. [his lordship after dealing with the evidence in the case concluded :] it is rather difficult to say, therefore, that the verdict is one which could notbe arrived at by a reasonable body of men. i think it is a case on the border line. it has caused me a certain amount of difficulty, but on the whole i agree with the learned chief justice that it is not a case in which we ought to interfere with the verdict of the jury under section 307 of the criminal procedure code.