NAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Twenty-four persons, among them the two appellants, were tried for offences under sections 148. 307/149, I.P.C. Sixteen were acquitted and the remaining eight were convicted. On appeal to the High Court five more were acquitted and the only ones whose convictions were upheld were the two appellants, Nar Singh and Roshan Singh, and one Nanhu Singh.

(2.) By a curious misreading of the evidence this Nathu Singh was mixed up with Bechan Singh. What the High Court really meant to do was to convict Bechan Singh and acquit Nanhu Singh. Instead of that they acquitted Bechan Singh and convicted Nanhu Singh. As soon as the learned High Court Judges realised their mistake they communicated with the State Government and an order was thereupon passed by that Government remitting the sentence mistaken passed on Nanhu and directing that he be released.

(3.) This occasioned an application under Article 134(1) (c) of the Constitution by Nanhu Singh and the two appellants Nar Singh and Roshan Singh for a certificate. The High Court rightly considered that the certificate should issue in the case of Nanhu Singh because, despite the remission of his sentence by the State Government and his release, his conviction on, among, other things, a charge of murder, still stood, and the High Court, understandably, though that the stigma of that might affect him adversely in the future. As regards the other two, there was nothing in their cases of warrant the issue of a certificate but the learned High Court Judges thought (wrongly in our opinion) that they were bound to do so because Article 134(1) (c) speaks of a "case" and they considered that the only "case" before them was the appeal as a whole. That, in our opinion, is wrong, "Case" as used there means the case of each individual person. That would be so even if the trial had been by the High Court itself but it is even more so on appeal because, though several persons may join in presenting a common memorandum of appeal (if the Rules of the Court in question so permit), the appeal of each forms a separate "case" for those purposes. That is obvious from the fact that every person who is convicted need not appeal nor need several convicts appeal at the same time under a joint memorandum; and if it were necessary to sent up the "case" as a whole in the sense which the learned High Court Judges contemplate, it would be necessary to join even those who were acquitted so that the "case" (in that sense) could be reviewed in its entirety. We are clear that is not the meaning of the word in the context of Article 134(1) and that the High Court was wrong in thinking that it was.