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.

In Re: A.S. Krishna and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Chennai Decided Jul 26, 1954
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/793147

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
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Misc. Petn. Nos. 1010, 1012, 1014 and 1016 of 1954
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

- - In our opinion, wide as the Explanation is, it would not cover an order on a reference like the one answered by this Court.

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Articles 132 and 134(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: A.S. Krishna and ors.

Advocate A.S. Sivakaminathan, ;S. Venkatakrishnan and ;M. Narayanamurti, Advs.

Respondent

Advocate Public Prosecutor and ;M.A. Mandanna, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Articles 132 and 134(1)
Cases Referred
India v. Venkata Rao
Reported In
AIR1955Mad532

Excerpt

- - in our opinion, wide as the explanation is, it would not cover an order on a reference like the one answered by this court......magistrate, saidapet, madras in a batch of four cases before him relating to offences under the madras prohibition act. several questions were raised in the reference, but this court confined itself to such questions as may be said to reasonably arise in the said cases. this was due to the fact that the reference was made, before any evidence had been taken. certain sections of the madras prohibition act were impugned as being invalid on one ground or the other, and this court decided that none of the provisions so impugned was void.2. these applications are under article 132(1) and article 134(i)(c) of the constitution. learned counsel for the applicants relied on the explanation to article 132, and the observations of the supreme court in -- 'election commission, india v. venkata rao', : [1953]4scr1144 (a), and contended that our order would fall within the wide scope of the explanation. in our opinion, wide as the explanation is, it would not cover an order on a reference like the one answered by this court. we did not decide any issue, which, if decided in favour of the applicants, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case. the two main questions with which we dealt related (1) to a section raising a presumption (section 4) and (2) to the issue of a search warrant, and search and seizure following it. it' cannot be said that if we had decided these two questions, in favour of the petitioners, the cases would have ended in their favour. we, therefore, hold that the petitioners are not entitled to leave under article 132(1).3. article 134(l)(c) does not apply to this case, because that article lays down that an appeal lies to the supreme court from any judgment, final 'order, or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a high court. there has been no such judgment, final order, or sentence. the petitioners arc not entitled to obtain leave under article 134 either.4. the petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

Full Judgment

Rajamannar, C.J.

1. These arc applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court on a reference made by the Third 'presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras in a batch of four cases before him relating to offences under the Madras Prohibition Act. Several questions were raised in the reference, but this court confined itself to such questions as may be said to reasonably arise in the said cases. This was due to the fact that the reference was made, before any evidence had been taken. Certain sections of the Madras Prohibition Act were impugned as being invalid on one ground or the other, and this court decided that none of the provisions so impugned was void.

2. These applications are under Article 132(1) and Article 134(I)(c) of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the applicants relied on the Explanation to Article 132, and the observations of the Supreme Court in -- 'Election Commission, India v. Venkata Rao', : [1953]4SCR1144 (A), and contended that our order would fall within the wide scope of the Explanation. In our opinion, wide as the Explanation is, it would not cover an order on a reference like the one answered by this Court. We did not decide any issue, which, if decided in favour of the applicants, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case. The two main questions with which we dealt related (1) to a section raising a presumption (Section 4) and (2) to the issue of a search warrant, and search and seizure following it. It' cannot be said that if we had decided these two questions, in favour of the petitioners, the cases would have ended in their favour. We, therefore, hold that the petitioners are not entitled to leave under Article 132(1).

3. Article 134(l)(c) does not apply to this case, because that article lays down that an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final 'order, or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court. There has been no such judgment, final order, or sentence. The petitioners arc not entitled to obtain leave under Article 134 either.

4. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial