A certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution should not be granted in a case where there is no error of law or procedure and the case does not involve any question of wide public or private importance.

1. This is an appln. by three persons who have been ordered to execute bonds for Rs. 1000 each with two sureties in the like amount for keeping the peace.

2. The Mag. on the basis of a petn. filed on 1-2-1949, by one Lakhan Gope & a police report thereon, started a proceeding under Sec.107, Cr. P. C., & ultimately passed the order referred to above. The order was upheld in appeal by the 3rd. Addl. Ses. J., Patna. The matter then came to this Ct. in revision, and the Chief Justice by his order dated 4-4-1950, rejected the appln. summarily.

3. We are asked to grant a certificate under Article 134 (1) (c), Const. Ind., which provides that an appeal shall lie to the S. C. from any final order in a criminal proceeding of H. C. in the territory of India if the H. C. certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the S. C. There is a proviso to Article 134 (1) which lays down that an appeal under Sub-clause (c) shall be subject to such provision as may be made in that behalf under Clause (1) of Article 145 & to such conditions as the H. C. may establish or require ; we are not concerned in the present case with any such provision or condition.

4. The only ground on which we can grant a certificate is that it is a fit case for appeal to the S. C. It is conceded that the Mag. took cognizance on a police report of a likelihood of a breach of the peace. The Mag. had territorial jurisdiction & he being responsible for the peace in the Sub-division, considered the case one in which the petnrs. should be called upon to show cause against the execution of bonds for keeping the peace. Therefore, he did exercise his jurisdiction bearing in mind the peace of the Sub-division. That being so, there is no want of jurisdiction in the Mag. There may or may not have been an error of law or an error of fact. Even if there was an error of law or an error in the procedure adopted by the Mag., we do not think that that is a sufficient ground to grant leave to appeal to the S. C.

5. The provision for a certificate of fitness for appeal in original cases was unknown before the commencement of the Constitution. An appeal to the Privy Council could lie only by special leave, & the settled practice of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee was not to act as a Ct. of appeal, review or revision. They interfered only if it was shown that by a disregard of the forms of legal process or by some violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise substantial or grave injustice had been done. Unless there was something so irregular or so outrageous as to shock the very basis of justice their Lordships refused to interfere. It was pointed out by Lord Dunedin in Mohindar Singh V/s. Emperor, 59 I. A. 233 : (A.I.R. (19) 1932 P.C. 234: 34 Cr. L. J. 18) that "their Lordships have repeated ad nauseam the statement that they do not sit as a Ct. of criminal appeal. For them to interfere with a criminal sentence there must be something so irregular or so outrageous as to shook the very basis of justice." This observation was repeated in Otto George Gfeller V/s. The King, A.I.R. (30) 1943 P. C. 211 at p. 216 : (45 Cr. L J. 241). The same view has been reiterated by their Lordships of the F. C. in the case of Kapildeo Singh V/s. The King, (A.I. R. (37) 1950 F. C. 80 : 51 Or. L. J. 1057) (Cr. App. No. 1 of 1949 of the Federal Court--an appeal arising by special leave against an order of the Patna H. C). Their Lordships have held that the F.C. does not act in the exercise of its power to review the course of justice in criminal cases in the free fashion of a fully constituted Ct. of criminal appeal. A. mere mistake on the part of the Ct. below, for example, in the admission of improper evidence, will not suffice if it has not led to injustice of a grave character.

6. It is not pointed out that any injustice of a grave character has been done to the petnr. by reason of a mistake in the procedure. The observations of their Lordships apply with all the greater