Skip to content


Narendra Swarup Bhatnagar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 119 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1975SC122; (1974)4SCC257; 1973()WLN993
ActsConstitution of India - Article 136
AppellantNarendra Swarup Bhatnagar
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan and ors.
Excerpt:
.....committal set aside on ground that offences committed prior to complaint and those committed after filing of complaint unconnected and to be inquired into separately - impugned order challenged - impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under article 136 - parties directed to raise all question except the direction given by high court at trial. constitution of india - article 136--interference under article 136--requirements of. - indian evidence act, 1872 section 3: [s.b.sinha & dr.mukundakam sharma,jj] appreciation of evidence presence of eye witnesses at the place of occurrence - wittnesses were injured held, his presence at spot cannot be doubted. section 3: eyewitnesses reliability incident taking place while deceased was.....m.h. beg and y.v. chandrachud, jj.1. we have heard learned counsel for both sides. we think that this is not a fit case for interference under article 136 of the constitution. the high court had quashed the commitment of the accused on the ground that the offences alleged to have been committed before the filing of the complaint, being legally unconnected with those alleged after the filing of the complaint, should be inquired into separately. the parties were left to urge other points involved in the cases. we think that this amounts to leaving all points of law and fact, except that the cases should be tried together, open to the parties to urge in the cases which may now be inquired into. consequently we dismiss this appeal by special leave.
Judgment:

M.H. Beg and Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.

1. We have heard learned Counsel for both sides. We think that this is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The High Court had quashed the commitment of the accused on the ground that the offences alleged to have been committed before the filing of the complaint, being legally unconnected with those alleged after the filing of the complaint, should be inquired into separately. The parties were left to urge other points involved in the cases. We think that this amounts to leaving all points of law and fact, except that the cases should be tried together, open to the parties to urge in the cases which may now be inquired into. Consequently we dismiss this appeal by special leave.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //