NATHU RAM V GODSE Vs. CROWN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NATHU Ram V. Godse has been found guilty by-Shri Atma Charan, I. C, S. Judge, Special court, Delhi, under Section 120-B, Penal Code read with s. S02 of the Code, under B. 19 (c), arms Act Cr in the alternative under Section 114, Penal Code read with Section 19 (c), Arms act,, under Section 19 (f), Arum Act, under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act Cr in the alternative under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act read with Section 6 of the Act, under section 4 (b), Explosive Substances Act read with Section 6 of the Act, under B. 8, Explosive sub-stances Act read with Section 6 of the Act, under Section 115, Penal Code read with Section 302 of the Code and under Section 302, Penal Code and has been sentenced (1) to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 19 (c), Arms Act, Cr in the alternative under Section 114, penal Code read with Section 19 (c), Arms Act, (2) to two years' rigorous imprisonment under section 19 (f), Arms Act, (3) to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 5, Explosive substances Act Cr in the alternative under Section 6, Explosive Substances Act read with section 6 of the Act, (4) to five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 4 (b), Explosive substances Act read with Section 6 of the Act, (5) to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under section 8, Explosive Substances Act read with 8. 6 of the Act and (6) to death under Section 802, Penal Code. The sentences of imprisonment have been Ordered to run concurrently. He appeals from jail.

(2.) NOW, the appeal of Nathu Ram V. Godse stands on the register of this Court and on receipt of notice issued to the appellant under Section 422, Criminal P. C, he has made a request to be allowed to come and argue his appeal when it comes up for final disposal. The matter came up before me sitting as the Vacation Judge in charge of the duties of that office imposed upon me and I felt doubtful whether in view of the practice of the Court the application of the appellant ought to be allowed. The practice of the Court is evidenced by the resolution adopted by the hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore on 7th May 1932. The resolution says: the Judges considered the practice to be adopted in dealing with applications from accused persona for permission to appear in person at the hearing of their appeals in the High Court. It was resolved that:

(3.) NOW, as in a good many cases convicts appealing from jail apply to be allowed to come and argue their appeals when they come up for final disposal, I considered that I should make a judicial observation on the point and thought it right to ask the learned Assistant advocate-General to look into the matter and refer me to any authorities on the subject, since there was no ruling of this Court upon the question and the practice followed in such cases in this court appeared to me to be of doubtful validity. The Crown counsel, however, gave me no assistance at the hearing and merely informed me that he had instructions to leave the matter to the decision of the Court.