Skip to content


In Re: A.S. Krishna and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Misc. Petn. Nos. 1010, 1012, 1014 and 1016 of 1954
Judge
Reported inAIR1955Mad532
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 132 and 134(1)
AppellantIn Re: A.S. Krishna and ors.
Appellant AdvocateA.S. Sivakaminathan, ;S. Venkatakrishnan and ;M. Narayanamurti, Advs.
Respondent AdvocatePublic Prosecutor and ;M.A. Mandanna, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredIndia v. Venkata Rao
Excerpt:
- - in our opinion, wide as the explanation is, it would not cover an order on a reference like the one answered by this court......132(1) and article 134(i)(c) of the constitution. learned counsel for the applicants relied on the explanation to article 132, and the observations of the supreme court in -- 'election commission, india v. venkata rao', : [1953]4scr1144 (a), and contended that our order would fall within the wide scope of the explanation. in our opinion, wide as the explanation is, it would not cover an order on a reference like the one answered by this court. we did not decide any issue, which, if decided in favour of the applicants, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case. the two main questions with which we dealt related (1) to a section raising a presumption (section 4) and (2) to the issue of a search warrant, and search and seizure following it. it' cannot be said that if we had.....
Judgment:

Rajamannar, C.J.

1. These arc applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court on a reference made by the Third 'presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras in a batch of four cases before him relating to offences under the Madras Prohibition Act. Several questions were raised in the reference, but this court confined itself to such questions as may be said to reasonably arise in the said cases. This was due to the fact that the reference was made, before any evidence had been taken. Certain sections of the Madras Prohibition Act were impugned as being invalid on one ground or the other, and this court decided that none of the provisions so impugned was void.

2. These applications are under Article 132(1) and Article 134(I)(c) of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the applicants relied on the Explanation to Article 132, and the observations of the Supreme Court in -- 'Election Commission, India v. Venkata Rao', : [1953]4SCR1144 (A), and contended that our order would fall within the wide scope of the Explanation. In our opinion, wide as the Explanation is, it would not cover an order on a reference like the one answered by this Court. We did not decide any issue, which, if decided in favour of the applicants, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case. The two main questions with which we dealt related (1) to a section raising a presumption (Section 4) and (2) to the issue of a search warrant, and search and seizure following it. It' cannot be said that if we had decided these two questions, in favour of the petitioners, the cases would have ended in their favour. We, therefore, hold that the petitioners are not entitled to leave under Article 132(1).

3. Article 134(l)(c) does not apply to this case, because that article lays down that an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final 'order, or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court. There has been no such judgment, final order, or sentence. The petitioners arc not entitled to obtain leave under Article 134 either.

4. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed.


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