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

1959 Supreme(Mad) 143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Somasundaram
Nijam Mohideen alias Rajan Mohamed, In re .....In Re.
Crl. M.P. No, 887 of 1959. (29th Sravana, 1881-Saka).
Decided On : 20 August 1959

Advocates:
V. Gopinathan, for Petitioners.
M. Narayanamurthy, for the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

Application for leave to appeal to be Supreme Court.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 134(1)(c) - "Final order" -Maintainability of application of eave to appeal to Supreme Court against an order on bail application.

       

Order.-

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order passed by me in Crl.M.P. No. 887 of 1959 refusing bail to the petitioners. The office has put up a note pointing out that such an application does not lie. This matter has been posted for orders on the note put up by the office. The question is whether such an application lies.

This is presented under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution. Under Article 134 (1) an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceedings of a High Court. The question is whether an order passed in the above Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is a final order. . The Explanation to Article 132 states that the expression “ final order” includes an order deciding an issue which if decided in favour of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case. An order on a bail application, even if it is in favour of the petitioners, would certainly not decide the case in their favour, that is to say, will not result in an acquittal. It is well known that an order releasing the accused on bail can be cancelled subsequently. Equally an order refusing bail at one stage may also be modified subsequently by an order directing the petitioners to be released on bail. The principle laid down in Krishna v. State1, and Dhanalakshmi v. Income-tax Officer2, will apply with equal force to an order on a bail petition as it cannot be said to be a final order in as much as it does not decide the issue between the parties and as it does not result either in conviction or acquittal of the petitioners. This not being a final order, Article 134 (1) (c) will not apply. Therefore this petition is incompetent and is rejected.

P.R.N. ----- Petition dismissed.



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 Back to top