Judgment

MAHAJAN, C.J.I.: Criminal Appeals Nos. 58 and 87 of 1953 relate to the same occurrence, and arise out of a common judgment delivered by the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer. Both of them are before us by special leave granted by this Court on different occasions.

2. Unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist that substantial and grave injustice has been done and the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against, this Court does not exercise its overriding powers under Article 136 (1) of the Constitution and the circumstance that because the appeal has been admitted by special leave does not entitle the appellant to open out the whole case and contest all the findings of fact and raise every point which could be raised in the High Court. Even at the final hearing only those points can be urged which are fit to be urged at the preliminary stage when the leave to appeal is asked for. The question for consideration is whether this test is satisfied in either of these two appeals. After hearing the learned counsel in both the appeals we are satisfied that none of them raise any questions which fall within the rule enunciated above.

3. On the 16th of July 1952 Mangilal deceased, partner of firm Rambhajan Mangilal of Bijainagar, received by express delivery post a letter (Ex. P-5) in a closed cover (Ex. P-6). This letter was actually delivered to Mangilal s son Laduram who on reading it, found that it purported to have been sent by "Bhayankar Daku Dal" demanding payment of Rs. 5,000 at 6-30 P. M. on the 17th of July at the crossing near the 27th milestone on the Ajmer-Bajinagar road and saying that "if you cheat or do 420 or in case you inform the police, no other punishment except that of death will be meted out to you and you will be shot dead and made to lie on the ground". Laduram took the original letter with the envelope to his uncle Ramjas at ajmer and both of them saw the Superintendent of Police and gave him the letter and the envelope and asked for immediate protection and investigation. The Superintendent of Police, however, took no action in this behalf. Mangilal failed to comply with the demand to pay.

On the 17th of July about 9 -30 P. M. when he was sitting at his shop and his munim Gajanand was writing the accounts, two persons came from the neighbouring street. One of them was dressed in a khaki suit and the other in a blue suit. The man in blue demanded from Mangilal a reply to the letter, while the man in khaki entered the shop and removed Mangilal s gun which was hanging in a canvas case from a peg on the wall of the shop. On Mangilal s replying that his son Laduram had taken the letter to Ajmer, the person dressed in blue fired from a Mauser pistol and shot Mangilal dead. The two assailants then ran away. On the way they threw the Mauser pistol and khaki clothes in the street at a short distance from the shop. Mangilal died shortly afterwards. The first information report was lodged by Nand Lal (P. W. 1) immediately after the occurrence at 9-45 P. M. In this report Nand Lal described the occurrence in the following terms:

"From the lane two men, one of whom was wearing khaki clothes having a hat on the head and the other waring blue clothes with a blue cap on the head came near Mangilalji and stood there. The man with khaki clothes said something to Mangilal and the man with the blue clothes went straight inside the shop and picked up Mangilal s gun from behind the door shutter and brought it out and stood near the khaki clad man, and at that time shot Mangilal with a pistol he had."

4. The prosecution challaned four persons, vis, Hem Raj, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1953, Hukum Singh, respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1953, Milap Singh and Abdul Hakim. It was alleged that all the four of them had acted in conspiracy and realised money from rich persons through threatening letters and in pursuance of the con