Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.45 seconds)Malak Khan vs The King-Emperor on 3 July, 1945
Lord Porter, in the case of Malak Khan v. Emperor, AIR (33) 1946 P. C. 16 : (47 Cr. L. J. 489), relying on Lord Watson's words in delivering the opinion of their Lordships in In re Abraham Mallory Dillet, (1887) 12 A. C. 459 : (56 L. T. 615) made it clear that the Privy Council would not review or interfere with the course of criminal proceedings, unless it was shown that, by a disregard of forms of legal process, or otherwise, substantial or grave injustice had been done. When neither of these things are present, the Privy Council will not interfere on the ground that the evidence was wrongly valued or was not sufficient to justify the conclusion reached. It requires more than an allegation or even proof that a Court might take a different view of the compelling, force of the evidence given.
Vaithinatha Pillai vs The King-Emperor on 24 July, 1913
21. Therefore, (to use the words of Lord Atkinson in the case of Vaithinatha Pillai v. Emperor, 21 I. C. 369: (36 Mad. 501 : 14 Cr. L. J. 577)), whatever doubts we may have of the applicant's innocence, or whatever suspicions we may entertain of his guilt or, however, great may be our reluctance that the decisions of this Court and of the Courts below shall be interfered with or overruled, we feel bound to certify that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court within the meaning and intendment of Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.
Muhammad Nawaz vs Emperor on 16 July, 1941
In the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. Emperor, AIR (28) 1941 P.C. 132 : (43 Cr. L. J. 1) it had been laid down :
Section 109 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Government of India Act, 1935
Nrisingha Charan Nandy Choudhry vs Rajniti Prasad Singh on 4 March, 1936
22. I have read with great care the reasons given by my Lord the Chief Justice while granting the certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. My hesitation and reluctance to grant such special leave were not so much due to my being a party to the judgment under appeal as to the doubts which I entertain regarding the fitness of this case for appeal to the Supreme Court as required by Sub-clause, (c) of Clause (1) of Article 134 of the Constitution. There was no provision similar to Article 134 in the Government of India Act, 1935, and consequently there are no decisions dealing with the question as to what may be considered 'to be a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court' against any judgment in a criminal proceeding of a High Court. But there are some decisions explaining similar provisions in Clause (c) of Section 109, Civil P. C., which also empowered the High Court to certify a case to be a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council.' The tests usually applied to determine fitness for the purpose of this clause were whether the point involved is one of "great public or private importance and whether the litigation is not oppressively expensive and the elucidation of the real issues in the case by a trial of the suit is not unduly postponed or delayed: Narsingha Charan v. Rajnity Prasad, A. I. R. (21) 1934 Pat.
1