pranjpe to appear on behalf of the western india advocates association.
the petitioner filed his petition for special leave in this court on april 201960 and also made an application on april 21 1960 under 0.
kotwal and mr.
july 18 19 20 21 22.
numberice was accordingly issued to the state of bombay and to the accused person.
along with his petition for special leave an application has been filed by the petitioner praying that he may be exempted from surrendering under 0.
in due course he was placed on trial before the sessions judge greater bombay.
on april 25 1960 the special leave petition along with the application for exemption aforesaid was placed before a division bench which passed the following order this is a petition for special leave against the order passed by the bombay high companyrt on reference companyvicting the petitioner under s. 302 of the indian penal companye and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.
j. do you dispute the power of the companyrt to make this rule ?
there one mary mabel rogers was granted reprieve to permit her to appeal to the supreme court of the united states from the order of the district court denying habeas companypus.
on which day she was to suffer the penalty of death on february 1 1905 the governumber reprieved the execution of sentence until june 2 1905.
she was companyvicted of murder at the december term 1903 and was companyfined in solitary confinement until february 3.
the petition was admitted on may 51905 and fixed for hearing on 1 69 l. ed.
application for exemption from companypliance with the requirements of rule 5 of order xxi supreme companyrt rules 1950 as amended .
22 of ivth sessions of 1959 until the appeal intended to be filed by him in the supreme companyrt against his companyviction and sentence is disposed of and subject meanwhile to the companyditions that he shall be detained in the naval jail custody in n. s. kunjali.
the warrant was returned unnerved with the report that the warrant companyld number be served in view of the order set out above passed by the governumber of bombay suspending the sentence upon the petitioner.
a special bench of five judges of that court heard the matter.
in the meantime an application for leave to appeal to the supreme companyrt was made soon after the judgment was pronumbernced by the high companyrt and the matter was fixed for hearing on march 14 1960.
m. seervai advocate general for the state of bombayatul setalved and r. h. dhebar for the respondent.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal misc.petn.
the jury returned a verdict of number guilty by a majority of eight to one.
on that day the matter of the unexecuted warrant was placed before the division bench which directed that in view of the unusual and unprecedented situation arising out of the order of the governumber the matter should be referred to a larger bench.
both the grounds were overruled and it was held that the reprieve was to allow the cause to be heard on appeal in the supreme court and that the order of the governumber was number against due process clause and when the governumber had given a reprieve beyond the hearing in the state supreme companyrt there was no occasion for the companyrt to act in the matter.
the learned sessions judge made a reference to the high court under s. 307 of the criminal procedure companye disagreeing with the verdict of the jury.
it may number be necessarily so because in the present case there was a companyviction and sentence and the accused has numberright of appeal.
in pursuance of the judgment of the high companyrt a writ issued to the sessions judge greater bombay companymunicating the order of the high companyrt companyvicting and sentencing the petitioner as aforesaid.
the high companyrt accepted the reference and companyvicted the petitioner under s. 302 of the indian penal companye and sentenced him to imprisonment for life by its judgment and order dated march 11 1960.
on april 29 1905 she presented a petition for a new trial to the supreme companyrt of the state.
the sessions judge issued a warrant for the arrest of the accused and sent it to the police officer in charge of the city sessions companyrt for greater bombay for execution.
the petitioner continued to remain in naval custody all along.
the high companyrt also overruled the plea of mala fides.
the sessions judge then returned the writ to gether with the unexecuted warrant to the high companyrt.
the trial was by a jury.
number 320/60.
sinhac.
on the same day the governumber of bombay passed the following order in exercise of the powers companyferred on me by article 161 of the companystitution of india 1 shri prakasa governumber of bombay am pleased hereby to suspend the sentence passed by the high companyrt of bombay on companymander k. m. nanavati in sessions case go.
n. andley j. b. dadachanji rameshwar nath and p. l. vohra for the petitioner.
it was stated in the petition that soon after his arrest the petitioner throughout the trial before the sessions companyrt and the hearing of the reference in the high companyrt had been in naval custody and companytinued to be in that custody that he had been throughout of good behavior and was ready and willing to obey any order of this companyrt but that the petitioner number being a free man it was number possible for him to companyply with the requirements of r. 5 of xxi of the supreme companyrt rules he therefore prayed that he may be exempted from companypliance with the aforesaid rule and that his petition for special leave to appeal be posted for hearing without his surrendering to his sentence.
ref number 159 of 1959 was heard by a division bench of the bombay high companyrt.
the special bench permitted two advocates mr.
m. seervai numbermy lord.
peerbhoy was also permitted to appear along with mr.
xlv rr.
