P L D 1947 Privy Council 39 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YAKUB KHAN-Petitioner Versus EMPEROR
| Citation | P L D 1947 Privy Council 39 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Lords Thankerton, Porter and Simonds; Sir Madhavan Nair and Sir John Beaumont |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAKUB KHAN-Petitioner Versus EMPEROR |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1947 Privy Council 39 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1947 Privy Council 39 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Lords Thankerton, Porter and Simonds; Sir Madhavan Nair and Sir John Beaumont.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1947 Privy Council 39 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YAKUB KHAN-Petitioner Versus EMPEROR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A. G. P. Pollan and J. M. R. Jayakar, for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Army Act (VIII of 1911), S. 100-Findings of Court Martial as and when confirmed by Proper officer -Is Final-No appeal lies to Privy Council. Where it is sought to bring an appeal from an order of a Court established under the provisions of an Act framed long after the Act of 1833, the competence of the appeal must be determined by the test laid down by Lord Cairns in (1877) 2 A C 102 at p. 108, where Lord Cairns says this : In other words their Lordships have to consider, not whether there are express words here taking away prerogative, but whether there ever was the intention of creating this tribunal with the ordinary incident of an appeal to the Crown Applying this test, their Lordships are clearly of opinion that the Indian Army Act intended the findings of a Court Martial as and when confirmed by the proper confirming officer, to be final, subject only to the power of revision for which this Act provides. There is no room for an appeal to His Majesty in Council con sistently with the subject-matter and scheme of the Act. Theberge v. Laudry (1877) 2 A C 102 rel. Solicitor's ; Douglas Grant Dold. D. N. Pritt and R. K. Handoo, for Crown. Solicitors : Solicitor, India Office.
Judgment & Decree
LORD THANKERTON.-The jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is purely statutory, resting on the Judicial Committee Act of 1833 and the amending Acts. The material provision is in section 3 of the Act of 1833, which reads as follows : "All appeals or complaints in the nature of appeals whatever, which either by virtue of this Act, or of any law, statute or custom, may be brought before His Majesty or His Majesty in Council from or in respect of the determination, sentence, rule or order of any Court, judge or judicial officer, and all such appeals as are now pending and unheard, shall from and after the passing of this Act be referred by His Majesty to the said Judicial Committee of His Privy Council, and such appeals, causes and matters shall be heard by the said Judicial Committee, and a report or recommendation thereon shall be made to His Majesty in Council for his decision thereon". as therein provided. Where it is sought to bring an appeal from an order of a Court established under the provisions of an Act framed long after the Act of 1833, the competence of the appeal must be determined by the test laid down by Lord Cairns in Theberge v. Landry ((1877) 2 A C 102 at p. 108.), where Lord Cairns says this "In other words their Lordships have to consider, not whether there are express words here taking away prerogative, but whether there ever was the intention of creating this tribunal with the ordinary incident of an appeal to the Crown". Applying this test, their Lordships are clearly of opinion that the Indian Army Act intended the findings of a Court Maitial as and when confirmed by the proper confirming officer, to be final, subject only to the power of revision for which this Act provides. There is no loom for an appeal to His Majesty in Council consistently with the subject-matter and scheme of the Act. Their-Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that the petition should be dismissed. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.