LAWS(SC)-1961-1-32

BHAGWATI SARAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Decided On January 20, 1961
BHAGWATI SARAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by :

(2.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the appellants in full we did not consider it necessary to call on the respondent since, we were clearly of the opinion that the contentions raised in the appeal possessed no merit.

(3.) IT would be seen that the only two points in controversy before the High court were: (1) whether the report of the police officer dated 20/08/1955, contained ' the facts constituting the offence ' with which the appellants were charged, as to satisfy the requirements of s. 11 of the Act, and (2) whether el. 11-B of the Control Order, violated the fundamental right to carry on business guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(g). In the grounds of appeal to this court and in the statement of case, however, the appellants have raised various other grounds and have also filed a petition for leave to urge these additional grounds, We desire to make it clear that grounds additional to those urged before the High court would not be permitted to be raised before this court as a matter of course and that petitions for such purpose would not be granted save in exceptional cases. IT has to be noticed that in hearing and dealing with such additional grounds the court is handicapped in not having the advantage of the opinions of the High court on the points urged. IT is the correctness of the decisions of High courts that are sought to be challenged in appeals and it is but proper that the correctness of these judgments should, save in exceptional cases like for instance subsequent legislation or questions of fundamental and general importance etc., be assailed only on grounds urged before such courts. Besides, when among the grounds thus urged as in this case is included a violation of Art. 14, the handicap is accentuated, since the material facts on which the classification might rest could not be properly, investigated or evaluated on the basis of the affidavits filed in this court without a careful sifting of the facts which a consideration by the High court would afford. If in the appeal now before us, we have departed from this rule, and permitted the appellants to urge the additional grounds it was because of the circumstance that the prosecution was pending and learned Counsel submitted that he would seek to sustain his contention regarding the violation of fundamental rights on the materials already on record.