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, Indian Penal Code read with Section 302 of the Code, under Section 19(c), Arms Act or in the alternative under Section 114, Indian Penal Code read with Section 19(c), Arms Act, under Section 19(f), Arms Act, under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act or in the alternative under Section 8, 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 Section 3, Explosive Substances Act read with Section 6 of the Act, under Section 115, Penal Code read with Section 302 of the Code and under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced (1) to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 19(c), Arms Act, or in the alternative under Section 114, Indian 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 or in the alternative under Section 5, Explosive Subatances 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 3, Explosive Substances Act read with Seciton 6 of the Act and (6) to deatb under Section 302, Indian 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 7 May 1932. The resolution says: The Judges considered the practice to be adopted in dealing with applications from accused persons for permission to appear in person at the hearing of their appeals in the High Court. It was resolved that: (i) where the sentence appealed against is one of death or transportation the permission should ordinarily be granted except when the accused is represented by counsel of his own choice; (ii) in other oases permission should not be granted unless the Judge considers that special reasons exist.

(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.