SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1919 Supreme(SC) 48

Bugga and others – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
India Office, Nevil, Rogers , Messrs Barrow, Crown, E. Richards, B. Dube, J. Simon

Viscount Haldane:-

We think under the circumstances it is right that there should be leave to appeal. This Board, as we have often said, is not a Court of Criminal Appeal, but there is a class of cases which is generally defined as the class of cases which falls within the category of what the Board laid down in Dillet., In re (1) in which they do advise the Sovereign to interfere where there has been a miscarriage of justice referred for its meaning to the fundamental principles of justice, for instance, if there has been anything coram non judice,' that is a case in point. If the argument that has been addressed to us here is right, the case has been coram non judice. There is one point, at any rate, on which we think that there is a serious point to argue, without expressing any opinion upon it, and that is that the second Ordinance has not extended the scope of the first Ordinance, and that the first Ordinance is limited to cases where the defendant is taken in flagrante delicto. There are other points besides that; there is the question of whether this could have retrospective action; that is quite another point. Then there is the question as to allegiance, to which reference h


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top