Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Jai Singh and ors. Vs. State

Jai Singh and ors. vs State

Disposition Application dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Sep 05, 1952
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/477748

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.C. Misc. Case No. 28 of 1952
Subject
Constitution
Disposition
Application dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

(i) Constitution - leave to appeal - Article 134(1) (c) of Constitution of India - in granting leave to appeal High Court governed by provision of Article 134(1) (c) and interpretation put on it. (ii) Powers of Supreme Court - Articles 134 and 136 of Constitution of India - under Article 136 power of Court are much ...

Key legal issue
Constitution
Outcome / disposition
Application dismissed
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Articles 134, 134(1) and 136

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jai Singh and ors.

Advocate S.N. Mulla, Adv.

Respondent

State

Advocate Govt. Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Articles 134, 134(1) and 136
Reported In
AIR1952All991

Excerpt

(i) constitution - leave to appeal - article 134(1) (c) of constitution of india - in granting leave to appeal high court governed by provision of article 134(1) (c) and interpretation put on it. (ii) powers of supreme court - articles 134 and 136 of constitution of india - under article 136 power of court are much wider than that under article 134 - supreme court governed by article 136 - supreme court can grant special leave in any case. - - 2. the learned counsel has urged that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution was not reliable and the accused specially devi singh and megh singh could not be convicted on such evidence. learned counsel has urged that special leave has been granted even on question of fact and this court should grant leaveeven in cases where the point raised is that theevidence on which the conviction was based waseither unreliable or insufficient. but this court, in granting leave, must be governed by the provisions of article 134 and the interpretation put on it, and we cannot, therefore, hold that the question, whether the evidence is or is not reliable when that evidence has been believed by the sessions judge and by this court, justifies the grant of a certificate under article 134(1)(c) of the constitution......case does not come under clauses (1) (a) and (b) of article 134, then a certificate can be granted only if the case is a fit one for appeal to the supreme court and thequestion, whether the case is or is not a fit case for appeal to the supreme court, must be decided in accordance with the principles laid down by their lordships of the judicial committee which have since been re-affirmed by their lordships of the supreme court. learned counsel has urged that special leave has been granted even on question of fact and this court should grant leaveeven in cases where the point raised is that theevidence on which the conviction was based waseither unreliable or insufficient. the supreme court in granting special leave is not governed by article 134. under article 136 the powers of that court are much wider and it can in its discretion grant special leave in any case.4. in support of his application learned counsel has urged that the supreme court has at times considered the evidence and has interfered with the concurrent findings of fact. the jurisdiction of the supreme court in matters coming up before it is not limited by any provision in the constitution and that court is not precluded from going into questions of fact if it considers it necessary. but this court, in granting leave, must be governed by the provisions of article 134 and the interpretation put on it, and we cannot, therefore, hold that the question, whether the evidence is or is not reliable when that evidence has been believed by the sessions judge and by this court, justifies the grant of a certificate under article 134(1)(c) of the constitution. we, therefore, see no reason to grant leave in this case.5. the application is rejected.

Full Judgment

Malik, C.J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants.

2. The learned counsel has urged that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution was not reliable and the accused specially Devi Singh and Megh Singh could not be convicted on such evidence. This is however, not a point on which we can grant leave under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution.

3. This Court, in an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in a criminal matter, has to be guided by the provisions ofArticle 134 of the Constitution and, if the case does not come under Clauses (1) (a) and (b) of Article 134, then a certificate can be granted only if the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court and thequestion, whether the case is or is not a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court, must be decided in accordance with the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee which have since been re-affirmed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Learned counsel has urged that special leave has been granted even on question of fact and this Court should grant leaveeven in cases where the point raised is that theevidence on which the conviction was based waseither unreliable or insufficient. The Supreme Court in granting special leave is not governed by Article 134. Under Article 136 the powers of that Court are much wider and it can in its discretion grant special leave in any case.

4. In support of his application learned counsel has urged that the Supreme Court has at times considered the evidence and has interfered with the concurrent findings of fact. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in matters coming up before it is not limited by any provision in the Constitution and that Court is not precluded from going into questions of fact if it considers it necessary. But this Court, in granting leave, must be governed by the provisions of Article 134 and the interpretation put on it, and we cannot, therefore, hold that the question, whether the evidence is or is not reliable when that evidence has been believed by the Sessions Judge and by this Court, justifies the grant of a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. We, therefore, see no reason to grant leave in this case.

5. The application is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial