Om Prakash Gupta vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 21 April, 1955
Contrary to what we had in the previous case before us,
viz., Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1956 (Om Prakash v. The
State of Uttar Pradesh), where no reasons were given as to
why the Court exercised its discretion in granting the
certificate, in this judgment we have an elaborate
discussion as to why such discretion was being exercised. by
the Court. The reasoning, however, does not, appeal to us.
Whatever may have been the misgivings of the learned Chief
Justice in the matter of a full and fair trial not having
'been held we are of the opinion that he bad no jurisdiction
to grant a certificate under article 134 (1) (c) in a case
where admittedly in his opinion the question involved was
one of fact-where in spite of a full and fair trial not
having been vouchsafed to the appellant, the question was
merely one of a further consideration of the case of the
Appellant on facts. The mere disability of the High Court
to remedy this circumstance and vouchsafe a full and fair
trial could not be any justification for granting a
certificate under article 134(1) (c) and converting this
Court into a Court of Appeal on facts. No High Court has
the jurisdiction to pass on mere questions of fact for
further consideration by this Court under the relevant
articles of the Constitution. We no doubt possess that
power and in proper cases have exercised it under article
136(1). If there has been a gross miscarriage of justice or
a departure from legal procedure such as vitiates the whole
trial we would certainly intervene and we would also
intervene if even the findings of fact were such as were
shocking to our judicial conscience and grant in such cases
special leave to appeal under article 136(1). That is, how-
' ever, a special jurisdiction which we can exercise under
article 136(1), but no High Court can arrogate that function
to itself and pass on to us a matter which in its view is
purely one involving questions of fact, because it finds
itself helpless to redress the grievance. In such a case,
the High Court should
83
642
refuse to give a certificate under article 134(1)(c) and ask
the parties to approach us invoking our special jurisdiction
under article 136(1) of the Constitution. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the discretion that was so
elaborately exercised by the Calcutta High Court in this
case was wrongly exercised.