Mohindar Singh and Another Vs. Emperor

Mohindar Singh and Another vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Privy Council Decided Apr 05, 1932

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/946293

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/946293
Court: Privy Council
Judge: Viscount Dunedinlords Tomlin, Thankertonsir George Lowndes &Amp; Sir Dinshah Mulla
Decided On: Apr 05, 1932
Case Number: Privy Council Appeal No.----------
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohindar Singh and Another

Advocate Solicitors for Petitioners, Hy.S.L. Polak and Co., Solicitors for Respondents, The Solicitor, India Office.

Respondent

Emperor

Excerpt

viscount dunedin: their lordships have frequently stated that they do not sit as a court of criminal appeal. for them to interfere with a criminal sentence there must be something so irregular or so outrageous as to shock the very basis of justice. such an instance was found in dillet's case (1), which has always been held to be the leading authority on such matters. in the present case the only real point is as to the meaning and effect of a section of the evidence act. the petitioners contended that a wrong view had been taken of the matter, also that upon a proper reading of the section there was an insufficiency of evidence to warrant the conviction. those are merely points for a court of criminal appeal. their lordships will humbly advise his majesty that the petition should be dismissed. petition dismissed.

Full Judgment

Viscount Dunedin:

Their Lordships have frequently stated that they do not sit as a Court of criminal appeal. For them to interfere with a criminal sentence there must be something so irregular or so outrageous as to shock the very basis of justice. Such an instance was found in Dillet's case (1), which has always been held to be the leading authority on such matters. In the present case the only real point is as to the meaning and effect of a section of the Evidence Act. The petitioners contended that a wrong view had been taken of the matter, also that upon a proper reading of the section there was an insufficiency of evidence to warrant the conviction. Those are merely points for a Court of criminal appeal. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the petition should be dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Same Parties Mohindar Singh and Another vs Emperor Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Viscount Dunedinlords Tomlin, Thankertonsir George Lowndes &A...