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

1945 Supreme(SC) 27

Nur Mohammad – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
India Office, Crown, Hy. S.L. Polak and Co., Crown, C. Bagram, G.D. Roberts , S.P. Khambatta

Lord Thankerton.-

In the present appeal only one question has been raised and that, as stated in the order granting leave, is a contention that the trial Court "having held there was no evidence at all on which any conviction could be based a Court of Criminal Appeal is not justified in reversing the Court of first instance by placing reliance on the very evidence which had been entirely rejected by the Court of first instance."

Their Lordships were referred, rightly enough, to the decision of this Board in the case in ('34) 21 AIR 1934 PC 227: 61 IA 398: 56 All 645: 151 IC 322(PC), Sheo Swarup v. Emperor and in particular to the passage at p. 404 in the judgment delivered by Lord Russell. Their Lordships do not think it necessary to read it all again, but would like to observe that there really is only one principle, in the strict use of the word, laid down there; that is, that the High Court has full power to review at large all the evidence upon which the order of acquittal, was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. Then follows an expression, under four headings, of what would be the proper practice, and their Lord



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