Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)The State Of Orissa vs Minaketan Patnaik on 12 December, 1952
In the case of State of Orissa v. Minaketan, AIR 1953 Orissa 160 (SB), Jagannadhadas, C. J. was inclined to the view that a High Court has no jurisdiction to grant a certificate referred to in Clause (c) in a case of acquittal. He referred to the fact that an appeal against acquittal is not an ordinary feature of the English Law and that the legislature of India has made a departure from it by specially providing for an appeal by the State Government from acquittal under Section 417 and observed:
State Of Madras vs Gurviah Naidu & Co. Ltd on 28 October, 1955
There is no similar provision which gives an absolute right of appeal to the Supreme Court from acquittal by a High Court. The learned judge did not consider at all the provision of Clause (c) and did not decide that a High Court has no jurisdiction to grant a certificate of fitness for appeal from its order by which it acquits an accused on appeal or maintains his acquittal on appeal under sec. 417. These observations were considered and explained by the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Gurviah Naidu and Co., Ltd., (S) AIR 1956 SC 158. The High Court of Madras on appeal had set aside the conviction of an accused and acquitted him. The State of Madras obtained from the High Court a certificate of fitness for appeal under Article 134(1)(c) and preferred an appeal from the acquittal to the Supreme Court.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State vs Tula Ram And Ors. on 9 March, 1960
In the case of Minaketan, AIR 1953 Orissa 160 (SB), referred to above and in State v. Tula Ram, 1900 All LJ 361 : (AIR 1960 All 585). it was pointed out that the words used in. Article 134 are wide enough to cover a certificate being granted by a High Court in any case, including one of acquittal.
State vs Kamlesh Hari And Anr. on 21 August, 1959
There is nothing in common between them and Clause (c), which gives an independent right to appeal. Clause (c) deals with a case in which there is no absolute right of appeal, that is, with every case barring a case in which an accused is tried and sentenced to death by the High Court itself. The words "the case" occurring in Clause (c) are not so ambiguous as to require any assistance from Clauses (a) and (b) in their interpretation. There is no scope at all for the application of the principle of ejus-dem generis, which was invoked by a Bench of this Court in State v. Kamlesh Hari, 1959 All LJ 887 : (AIR 1960 All 458). With great respect to our learned brothers, who decided the case, we may point out that there are no genus and species in Article 134 -- no particular words (species) followed by a word of general import (genus).
1