Privy Council

Appraisement of evidence in criminal matters-Practice and development of rules.

Privy Council Not a Court of Criminal Appeal-Will not interfere in every case of error of Law-Principal ingredient of offence not proved-Privy Council will interfere.

Allowing criminal appeal and directing Court of Appeal either to enter a verdict of acquittal or order new trial according as the Court considers proper in interests of justice.

Will not be entertained by the Board.

While dismissing criminal appeal may call Executive's attention to unsatisfactory features of case.

Not a Court of Criminal Appeal- Interference on proof of "fundamental defect in administration of justice."

Criminal Appeal-Board will interfere if something has taken place which diverts orderly administration of law into a new course, e.g., view of scene of crime by jury with witnesses and demonstration in absence of Judge.

Will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact of Courts below.

Appeal in criminal matter-Appeal from order of re-trial cannot be entertained unless falling within usual principles.

Leave to appeal in criminal matter Leave sought, to appeal from order refusing to extend time to file notices of appeal-Leave given, but Board decided to hear appeal from conviction.

Additional evidence in appeal before Board-When entertainable-Appeal against order of suspension against an Advocate.

Privy Council Jurisdiction in criminal matters-Nature of.

Privy Council Privy Council-Appeal to, as to costs only-Whether, lies-West African (Appeal to Privy Council) Order in Council 19491950, Art. 3 - Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 158(a)(b)-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 110.

Privy Council Privy Council-Not a Court of Criminal Appeal-Will not review facts in criminal cases.

Council-Whether High Courts in Pakistan can examine the soundness of rulings of.

Entitled to greatest respect. Per Muhammad Munir, C. J.-I agree that decisions of the Privy Council are no longer binding on us now, but being expositions of the law by one of the highest judicial tribunals in the world composed of. distinguished men who had special knowledge of our public law, they are entitled to the greatest respect and we are not to disregard them merely on the ground of changed conditions because the recognition of any such ground for departure from well-settled and fundamental principles would be tantamount to imputing judicial dishonesty to that tribunal.

Privy Council Rule as to concurrent findings Exception.

Privy Council Entertainable from any party to matter civil or criminal-Crown's right to appeal.

Privy Council-Will refuse usually to review evidence for a third time unless there has been miscarriage of justice or violation of some principle of law or procedure.

Practice-Privy Council-Weighing of evidence-Essentially a matter for trial Court.

Privy Council-Will not review evidence so as to disturb concurrent findings unless special circumstances justify that course.

Practice-Privy Council -Findings of fact of trial judge-May be reviewed by Appellate Court if based on theory or assumptions not offering direct support for such findings.

Practice-Privy Council-Contention based on fact not raised in Courts in India-Cannot be considered.

Practice- Privy Council- Criminal case- Decision of Courts in India based on evidence-Not to be interfered with even though another tribunal might have come to a different conclusion.

Practice -Privy Council-Criminal case-Judgment of High Court based on evidence-High Court entitled to act upon that evidence-Decision not to be interfered with.

Practice-Privy Council-Raising new ground not pre­sented to Courts below-Allowed to be raised when respondent was not taken by surprise and the ground furnished occasion to state the Court's reasons for rejecting it in the public interest-Such allowance, however, not to serve as a precedent.

Practice-Privy Council-Question set out in Order in Council-Court cannot decide any matter beyond such order.

Practice-Privy Council-Fresh ground of support based upon provision of public statute-Overlooked by High Court, and mentioned only in passing by Subordinate Judge-Allowed to be raised by Privy Council.

Practice-Privy Council-Plea in law not pressed in Lower Court-Plea is nevertheless open in appellate Court.

None the less applicable when decision of a Court not unanimous.

Practice-Privy Council-Question not raised in plead­ings, or ref erred to in judgments or mentioned in petition before Board-Not allowed to be raised in argument.

Practice-Privy Council-Petition to reconsider decision delivered-Entertained when advice to His Majesty had not yet been tendered.

Practice-Privy Council-May tender advice inconsis­tent with previous decision. It is competent for their Lordships of the Privy Council to tender advice to His Majesty inconsistent with the previous decision, though it can only be in the most exceptional circum­stances that such a course should be taken.

Board will determine question of princifle and not consider mere items. In matters relating to accounts the Board will determine any question of principle involved but will not consider mere items of account.

Practice-Privy Council -Value for appeal-Question fully debated by respondent on petition for leave-Not allowed to be raised again at hearing. The respondent had appeared on the petition for leave to appeal when the question of value was fully debated. The Order in Council did not reserve liberty to the respondent to raise this matter again at the hearing, and in their Lordships' opinion the preliminary objection was not now open.

Ground of appeal neither raised in Courts in India nor suggested in grounds before the Board-Not discussed by Privy Council. The respondents were superior proprietors of certain of the lands in question and, as such, were not directly concerned either personally or through tenants in the agricultural use of those lands, the appellant did not contend in the Courts in India, or suggest as a ground for his appeal to the Board, that the respondents were not agriculturists within the meaning of the United Provinces Debt Redemption Act of 1940 in respect of all or any of their lands. This being so their Lordships did not discuss the wide terms of the definition and proceeded on the assumption that the respondents were agriculturists for purposes of the statute as regards all the said properties.

Practice-Privy Council- Grounds abandoned before Federal Court-Not allowed to be argued. Their Lordships did not think it right to allow the appel­lant to argue matters which he had elected not to argue before the Federal Court and on which, in consequence, that Court had given no decision.

Practice-Privy Council-Appellant challenging reduction ordered by High Court in certain items of accounts and award of interest to respondents on certain sums-Preliminary objection that these involved no question of principle but were merely items of accounting in taking partnership accounts-Objection not upheld-Appeal allowed to proceed.

Privy Council Appeal No. 64 of 1945, decided on 16th March 1948, from Palestine. Estoppel-By conduct-By admission-Essential element-Registrar of Lands "correcting" entry as to area of a certain locality on representation of Party (Bank) claiming to be owner thereof

Registrar does not thereby settle any question of title.

Privy Council-Practice-Will challenged on ground that execution of it was obtained by undue influence-Undue influence is purely question of fact-Privy Council not to interfere though evidence gives reasons for gravest suspicion.

Privy Council-Practice-New Point-Point irreconcilable with case put forward in Pleadings and not adjudicated upon by Courts below-Cannot be allowed to be raised before Privy Council.

Privy Council-New point-Not to be raised for first time before Privy Council.