NDLI: Janardan Reddy and Others Vs. The State of Hyderabad and Others

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Constitution of India Art. 32
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Dismissed
Headnote	Constitution of India, Art. 32-Special Tribunals Regulation (Hyderabad), ss. 2, 7-Conviction and death sentence by Special Tribunal-Confirmation by High Court before 2.6th January, 1950- Application under Art. 32 for writs of prohibition, certiorari and habeas corpus-Maintainability-Detention under conviction by criminal court-Application for habeas corpus-Jurisdiction of convicting court, whether can be gone into-Effect of confirmation of conviction on appeal-Misjoin4e, of charges-Omission to provide counsel for accused-Validity of conviction-Interference under Art. 32.There is a basic difference between want of jurisdiction and an illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction, and mere non-compliance with rules. of procedure (e. g., misjoinder of charges} cannot be made a ground for granting a writ under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The defect, if any, can, according to the procedure Stablished by law, be corrected only by a court of appeal or revision, and if the appellate court which was competent to deal with the matter has considered the matter and pronounced its ·judgment, it cannot be reopened in a proceeding under Art. 32 of the Constitution.Where, some time after the pronouncement of a sentence of death by hanging by a Special Tribunal of the Hyderabad State and pending confirmation of the sentence by the High Court of Hyderabad, a Regulation was passed to the effect that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force any sentence of death passed by a Special ; Tribunal shall be carried into execution by hanging:. Held, that the Regulation must be taken to have retrospective effect, as the mode of execution of a sentence cannot be regarded as a matter of substantive law, and. the sentence for hanging cannot be held to be illegal even assuming that under the law which was in force in Hyderabad at the time the sentence was passed by the Special Tribunal sentences to death could be carried out only by decapitation. in any event, as the High Court which upheld the conviction had the power to impose the sentence of death by hanging under the Regulation, no relief could be granted to the accused under Art. 32 of the Constitution.Section 7(2) of the Special Tribunals Regulation passed by the Military Governor of Hyderabad covered all those cases where manzuri and tashih were contemplated under the old law arid sentences of death passed by a Special Tribunal could therefore be executed without the assent or approval of H.E. H. the Nizam.The result of s. 271 of the Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code, (which corresponds to s.340 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code) read along with the Rules and Circular Orders issued by the Hyderabad High Court is : (i) that it cannot be laid down as a rule of law that in every capital sentence where the accused is unrepresented the trial should be held to be vitiated; and (ii) that a court of appeal or revision is not powerless to interfere if it is found that the accused was so handicapped for want of legal aid that the proceedings against him may be said to amount to negation of a fair trial.The writs referred to in Art. 32 must obviously be correlated to one or more of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and can be made only for the enforcement of such rights.The petitioners who were convicted by a Special Tribunal of Hyderabad of murder and other offences and sentenced to death by hanging and whose convictions and sentences had been confirmed by the Hyderabad High, Court before the 26th January, 1950, applied to the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the new Constitution for the following reliefs: (i) a writ in 'the nature of certiorari calling upon the Government of Hyderabad and the Special Judge to produce the records of the case and show cause why the convictions and sentences should not be quashed, (ii) for a writ of prohibition directing the Government and Special Judge not to execute the petitioners, and (iii) for a writ of habeas corpus:
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sir Saiyid Fazl Ali
Neutral Citation	1951 INSC 18
Petitioner	Janardan Reddy And Others
Respondent	The State Of Hyderabad And Others
SCR	[1951] 1 S.C.R. 344
Judgement Date	1951-03-16
Case Number	12

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Janardan Reddy and Others Vs. The State of Hyderabad and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Janardan Reddy and Others Vs. The State

Sudipta Lenka Vs. State of Odisha and Ors.

Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. and Others Vs. The Union of India and Others

Rachna & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Pankaj Sinha Vs. Union of India and Others

Syed Qasim Razvi Vs. The State of Hyderabad and Others

Reepak Kansal Vs. Secretary General, & Ors.

Endupuri Narasimham and Son Vs. The State of Orissa and Others

Janardan Reddy and Others Vs. The State of Hyderabad and Others

Janardan Reddy and Others Vs. The State of Hyderabad and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Janardan Reddy and Others Vs. The State

Sudipta Lenka Vs. State of Odisha and Ors.

Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. and Others Vs. The Union of India and Others

Rachna & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Pankaj Sinha Vs. Union of India and Others

Syed Qasim Razvi Vs. The State of Hyderabad and Others

Reepak Kansal Vs. Secretary General, & Ors.

Endupuri Narasimham and Son Vs. The State of Orissa and Others

Janardan Reddy and Others Vs. The State of Hyderabad and Others