BANA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tais is an appln. by the accused persons under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution invoking our jurisdiction to certify that the criminal case in which they have been convicted is a fit one for appeal to the S. C. The learned counsel, in substance argues that the subtleties that once arose for consideration in the matter of special leave to appeal in criminal cases to the P. C. ought not to arise in the case of leave to appeal to the S. C. His contention is that unlike the Judicial Committee of the P.C, the S. C is a Ct. of Appeal within the meaning of the said Article 134 (1) (a) & (b). Under the circumstances, he would argue that more liberalised consideration ought to apply.

(2.) Bound as we are by the decisions of the S. C. in this matter, we cannot find our way to concede to this contention. We should invite attention to a recent decision of the S. C. in the case of Pratims Singh v. The State, A I. R. (37) 1950 S. C. 169 : (51 Cr. L. J. 1870). There Fazl Ali J, while agreeing with a similar contention in its broad outlines, has expressed himself in the following passage namely:

(3.) Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the applts. urges that the teat laid down by his Lordship applies in ease the case comes under Article 136 of the Constitution, that is to say, in a case where special leave to appeal is prayed for in the S. C., & as such, it is not applicable to the case before us which is one under Article 134 (1) (c) I do not find any merit in this distinction. His Lordship has said : 'The assumption that once an appeal bag been admitted by special leave, the entire case is at large & the applt. is free to contest all the findings of fact & raise every point which could be raised in the H. C. or the trial Ct is entirely unwarranted. Only those points can be urged at the final hearing of the appeal before the Schedule which are fit to be urged at the preliminary stage when leave to appeal is asked for, & it would be illogical to adopt different standards at two different stages of the same case.'