Skip to content


In Re: T. Venkateswara Rao and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Misc. Petn. Nos. 2031 to 2037 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1951Mad611; (1951)IMLJ11
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 491; Constitution of India - Articles 132 and 226; Preventive Detention Act, 1950 - Sections 3
AppellantIn Re: T. Venkateswara Rao and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredMachindar Shivaji v. The King A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- .....which had been disposed of on the merits by this court. the reasons alleged are that at the time the applications were heard the petitioners were not present in court.2. there is no provision of law which enables the court to rehear an application for a writ of habeas corpus which has been disposed of on merits by the court after examining the materials placed before it, even though the party or counsel was not present at the time the petition was heard. once the application had been looked into and disposed of on the merits there is no provision either in the criminal procedure code or any other law for the time being in force which empowers the high court to rehear such an application. an application for a writ of habeas corpus is of a criminal nature and no review is allowed in.....
Judgment:

Govinda Menon, J.

1. These are applications by the various petitioners therein for restoring applications which had been disposed of on the merits by this Court. The reasons alleged are that at the time the applications were heard the petitioners were not present in Court.

2. There is no provision of law which enables the Court to rehear an application for a writ of habeas corpus which has been disposed of on merits by the Court after examining the materials placed before it, even though the party or counsel was not present at the time the petition was heard. Once the application had been looked into and disposed of on the merits there is no provision either in the Criminal Procedure Code or any other law for the time being in force which empowers the High Court to rehear such an application. An application for a writ of habeas corpus is of a criminal nature and no review is allowed in such matters. We are, therefore, of the opinion that these applications are not maintainable and are therefore dismissed.

3. In the alternative, in each of these petitions there is a prayer for granting the petitioner leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court. It seems to us that in view of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Machindar Shivaji v. The King A.I.R. 1950 F.C. 129: 51 Cr.L. J. 1480, where Patanjali Sastri J. in delivering the judgment of the Court expressed the opinion that if the applicant was a member of a communist party which itself was indulging in unlawful and subversive activities, that by itself would be sufficient for the Government of the State to come to the conclusion that his being at large would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the State. Following the observations of the Supreme Court we feel that there is no substantial question of law involved in these cases which would warrant us in granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

4. All these petitions are, therefore, dismissed.


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