NUR MOHAMAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present appeal only one question has been raised and that, as stated in the order granting leave, is a contention that the trial Court " having held there was no evidence at all on which any conviction could be based a Court of Criminal Appeal is not justified in reversing the Court of first instance by placing reliance on the very evidence which had been entirely rejected by the Court of first instance. "

(2.) THEIR Lordships were referred, rightly enough, to the decision of this Board in the case of Sheo Swarup v. The King-Emperor (1934) L. R. 61 I. A. 398: S. C. 36 Bom. L. R. 1185 and in particular to the passage at p. 404 in the judgment delivered by Lord Russell. THEIR Lordships do not think it necessary to read it all again, but would like to observe that there really is only one principle, in the strict use of the word, laid down there; that is, that the High Court has full power to review at large all the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. Then follows an expression, under four headings, of what would be the proper practice, and their Lordships think is the proper practice, for the High Court to follow in considering whether they should reverse the decision of the Sessions Judge. At the foot of the page there is a paragraph expressing a view which is quite common in such cases, that the Board' will always assume that a Court has followed the proper practice unless something appears which proves the contrary.