BALDEO SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by an accused who has been found guilty by the Additional Ses. J. of Indore under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to death. The sentence of death was confirmed and an appeal preferred by the accused against the conviction and sentence was rejected on 165-51 by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of My Lord the Chief Justice and my brother Mehta. This appeal is against the decision of the Division Bench. It is purported to have been filed under Section 25, High Court of Judicature Act, (Act No. 8 of 1949 ).

(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Shiv Dayal on behalf of the State that the appeal is incompetent. The objection is that Section 25, High Court Act, was amended on 25-1-60 by Ordinance No. l of 1950 and that the amendment took away the right of appeal from any judgment, decree, order and sentence passed or made after the promulgation of that Ordinance by a Division Bench and deprived this Court of the jurisdiction to hear and determine any such appeal. It was said that even after the expiry of the period of the Ordinance there is no right of appeal against the decisions of any Division Bench of this Court given after 25-1-50 and this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine any such appeal. The learned Deputy Govt. Advocate also referred to Article 225 of the Constitution of India and said that as under that Article the jurisdiction of the High Court is the same as that existed immediately before the commencement of the Constitution and as on that date this Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine any appeal against the decisions of any Division Bench given after 25-150, it has no jurisdiction to entertain, hear and determine this appeal.

(3.) MR. Kak, on behalf of the appellant contended that Ordinance No. 1 of 50 did not repeal Section 25, High Court Act, but merely suspended during the time that the Ordinance was to remain in force the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine any appeal from the decisions given after 25. 1. 50 by any Division Bench; that this jurisdiction is revived after the termination of the six months period of the Ordinance and further that the Ordinance cannot be construed so as to take away for all time the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine appeals from the decisions referred to above, for, to do so would be to give to the raj Pramukh legislative power of permanently altering or repealing or amending any law passed or made by the Legislature a power which he did not possess under Article 8 and 10 of the Covenant entered into by Rulers of Gwalior and Indore and other States of the Central India for the formation of the Madhya Bharat Union.