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

1950 Supreme(Mad) 298

GOVINDA MENON, BASHEER AHMED SAYEED


Advocates:
Counsel not appearing on behalf of the Petitioners.

Govinda Menon, J.-These are applications by the various petitioners therein for restoring applications which had been disposed of on the merits by this Court. The reasons alleged are that at the time the applications were heard the petitioners were not present in Court.

There is no provision of law which enables the Court to rehear an application for a writ of habeas corpus which had been disposed of on the merits by the Court after examining the materials placed before it, even though the party or counsel was not present at the time the petition was heard. Once the application had been looked into and disposed of on the merits there is no provision either in the Criminal Procedure Code or any other law for the time being in force which empowers the High Court to rehear such an application. An application for a writ of habeas corpus is of a criminal nature and no review is allowed in such matters. We are, therefore, of the opinion that these applications are not maintainable and are therefore dismissed.

In the alternative, in each of these petitions there is a prayer for granting the petitioner leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court. It seems to us th



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