Issue 3

3.
WHETHER THIS APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLESUPREME
COURT?
It is most humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Amphissa that this appeal
petition under section 132 and 134 of the Constitution of Amphissa is maintainable.Article
132 of The Constitution of Amphissa reads as follows:An Appeal to the Supreme Court from
any judgment, decree or final order of The High Court, whether in civil, criminal, or other
proceedings, if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution.Article 134 of The Constitution of Amphissa reads as
follows:An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence
in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court has on
appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death;o r
has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court
subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused
p e r s o n a n d s e n t e n c e d h i m t o death; or (c) c e r t i f i e s u n d e r A r t i c l e 1 3 4 A t h a t
t h e c a s e i s a f i t o n e f o r a p p e a l t o t h e S u p r e m e Court: Provided that an appeal
under sub clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under
clause( 1 ) of Article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or
require(2) P a r l i a m e n t m a y b y l a w c o n f e r o n t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t a n y
f u r t h e r p o w e r s t o entertain and hear appeals from any judgment, final order
or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory subject to such
conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law.

The power of the court to hear appeals in this article is much wider and general. It vestsin the
SC plenary jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining and hearing appeals against:
(i)Any judgment, decree, determination, or order,
( i i ) I n a n y c a u s e o r m a t t e r , (iii)Passed or made by
a n y c o u r t o r t r i b u n a l The appellant in the present case has filed the appeal under
article 132 and 134 as theH i g h C o u r t h a s a c q u i t t e d t h e a c c u s e d ( r e s p o n d e n t )
f o r t h e o f f e n c e o f m u r d e r a n d hence is maintainable.In
Delhi Judicial Service Association Vs. State of Gujarat
1
It was held by The Supreme Court that :- Under Article 132 there is no room for
any doubt that this Court has wide power to interfere and correct the judgment and
orders passed by any court or tribunal in the country. In addition to the Appellate power,
thecourt has special residuary power to entertain appeal against any order of any court inthe
country. The plenary jurisdiction of this Court is to grant leave and hear appeals
against any order of the court or tribunal, confers power of special
superintendence over all courts and tribunals including subordinate courts of
Magistrate and DistrictJudge. This court has, therefore, supervisory jurisdiction over all
courts in India.In an another case of
Arunachalam vs. P.S.R. Sadhanantham
2

, it was again held bythe SC that:- Article 132 of the constitution of India invests the Supreme
Court with
a plentitude of plenary, appellate power, over all courts and Tribunals in India. The power is
plenary in the sense that there are no words in Article 136 itself qualifying that power. But,
the very nature of the power has led the court to set limits to itself within which to
exercise such power.
1.1991 AIR 2176, 1991 SCR (3) 9362 . 1 9 7 9 A I R 1 2 8 4

Under Article 136, the very exceptional circumstances, as when a question of law of
general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court. But, with
findingsof fact, making no distinction between judgments of acquittal and
conviction, if the HighCourt, in arriving at those findings, has acted “perversely or
otherwise improperly”Here there has been the respondent murdered the victim and
then also the respondent has been acquitted from the offence of murder under section 302
of IPC committed by him. Thisreckless behavior of High Court clearly proves that
the decision was given perversely
or i m p r o p e r l y , a n d t h e r e r f o r e , t h i s p e t i t i o n i s m a i n t a i n a b l e b e f o r e t h e S
u p r e m e C o u r t o f Amphissa.In this case there has been miscarriage of justice as
the accused was acquitted by the HighCourt despite of the Commission
of Murder. This petition cannot be dismissed and hence ismaintainable in this
Hon’ble Court.I n c a s e o f
Indira Kaur and ors Vs. Sheo Lal Kapoor
3

, it was held the following, If and when the Court is satisfied that great injustice
has been done it is not only the right but
alsot h e d u t y o f t h i s c o u r t t o r e v e r s e t h e e r r o r a n d t h e i n j u s t i c e a
n d t o u p s e t t h e f i n d i n g notwithstanding that fact it has been affirmed thrice.In this
case also this Hon’ble Court has not only but it is also the duty of the SC to reverse the error
and injustice and pass an appropriate, just and equitable order.I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h e r e
h a s b e e n i n j u s t i c e w i t h t h e v i c t i m a n d t h e a p p e l l a n t b e i n g t h e aggrieved
party seeks justice. Therefore, the appellant has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
order to obtain justice.
3.(1998) 2 SCC 488, 499 AIR 1988 SC 1074

Issue 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Issue 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Issue 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like