HARIPADA DEY versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER.

HARIPADA DEY versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER.

The High Court erred in granting a certificate of fitness under Article 134(1)(c) when only questions of fact were involved; such jurisdiction is not vested in the High Court, and parties should seek special leave under Article 136(1) for re-consideration of facts. The accused is responsible for not adducing evidence to support his defence; the prosecution's case, proved beyond reasonable doubt, stands, and there is no ground for the Supreme Court to interfere.

Parties
Appellant: Haripada Dey; Respondent No. 1: The State of West Bengal; Respondent No. 2: Another (Respondent No. 2)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 September 1956
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1954 Under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution / Decision on Appeal From Calcutta High Court Judgment Dated 27th May 1954 in Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 1953
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for special leave rejected.
Legal Topics
Article 134(1)(c) Certificate of Fitness, Supreme Court Special Jurisdiction Under Article 136(1), Jurisdiction of High Court to Grant Leave to Appeal on Facts, Evidence—onus on Accused to Prove Defence
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Article 134(1)(c) Certificate of Fitness Supreme Court Special Jurisdiction Under Article 136(1) Jurisdiction of High Court to Grant Leave to Appeal on Facts Evidence—onus on Accused to Prove Defence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haripada Dey

Appellant

The State of West Bengal

Respondent No. 1

Another (Respondent No. 2)

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1954 Under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution / Decision on Appeal From Calcutta High Court Judgment Dated 27th May 1954 in Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 1953

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) on a mere question of fact
  2. 2 Whether a certificate for leave to appeal under Article 134(1)(c) was properly granted when only questions of fact were involved
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court's special jurisdiction under Article 136(1) can be relied on in matters involving mere questions of fact

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in granting a certificate of fitness under Article 134(1)(c) when only questions of fact were involved; such jurisdiction is not vested in the High Court, and parties should seek special leave under Article 136(1) for re-consideration of facts. The accused is responsible for not adducing evidence to support his defence; the prosecution's case, proved beyond reasonable doubt, stands, and there is no ground for the Supreme Court to interfere.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for special leave rejected.

Orders

  • Bail bond cancelled.
  • Appellant to surrender to his bail.