PHILLIP E BILLINGHURST Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the sentence passed by this Court in a criminal appeal.

(2.) The petitioner Billinghurst was tried by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. The accused was arrested on the 1st September 1919; the trial began on the 7th June 1921; the hearing was finished on the 22nd August 1922; and the judgment was delivered on the 28th November 1922. The petitioner was found guilty on each of the two charges and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal to this Court. The appeal was heard by Sanderson, C.J., and Richardson, J; their judgment was pronounced on the 31st May 1923. The decision of the Magistrate as to the first charge was upheld, while the conviction under the second charge was set aside; and the sentence was reduced from one year to nine calendar months: Billinghurst v. Emperor 82 Ind Cas. 445 : 27 C.W.N. 821: (1924) A.I.R. (C) 18. The prisoner has now applied to this Court for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the judgment and sentence pronounced by this Court in the appeal on the 1st May 1923. The petition, which has been forwarded by the Superintendent of the Alipore Central Jail with a covering letter dated the 29th September 1923, does not specify under what provision of the law this Court is invited to grant leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council.

(3.) Clauses 39-42 of the Letters Patent deal with appeals to the Privy Council. Clauses 39 and 40 deal with matters other than those of criminal jurisdiction. Clause 41 deals with appeals from criminal cases and is in the following terms: