Mohindar Singh And Anr v. Emperor

Mohindar Singh And Anr v. Emperor

(Privy Council)

| 05-04-1932

Viscount Dunedin, J.

1. Their Lordships have frequently stated that they do not sit as a Court of criminal appeal. For them to interfere with a criminal sentence there must be something so irregular or so outrageous as to shock the very basis of justice. Such an instance was found in Dillets case [1887] 12 A.C. 459, which has always been held to be the leading authority on such matters. In the present case the only real point is as to the meaning and effect of a section of the Evidence Act. The petitioners contended that a wrong view had been taken of the matter, also that upon a proper reading of the section there was an insufficiency of evidence to warrant the conviction. Those are merely points for a Court of criminal appeal. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the petition should be dismissed.

Advocate List
Bench
  • Viscount Dunedin, J.
Eq Citations
  • (1932) ILR 13 LAH 479
  • (1933) 64 MLJ 77
  • 59 M.I.A. 233
  • AIR 1932 PC 234
  • LQ/PC/1932/28
Head Note

Penal Code — S. 374 — Interference by Privy Council — When warranted — Only real point being as to meaning and effect of S. 32 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Petitioners contending that a wrong view had been taken of the matter, also that upon a proper reading of the section there was an insufficiency of evidence to warrant the conviction — Held, those are merely points for a Court of criminal appeal — Privy Council will humbly advise His Majesty that the petition should be dismissed