18 , the facts were stated to be these On the 15th May, at about midnight, the accused visited Kasthala village, carrying firearms and dressed in khaki uniform.
5 of 1358 F , which was amended by several later Regu lations issued on the 22nd May, 1949, 10th July, 1949, 23rd July and 30th October, 1949.
12, 13 and 14, of 1951 and the other under Art.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION These were two sets of petitions by three groups of persons, one under Art.
14 dated the 20th July, 1949, to the Tribunal.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZL ALI J. These are six petitions which have been presented to this Court on behalf of three groups of persons in the following circumstances.
15 to 40 were made over to the same Tribunal for trial.
32 of the Consti tution Petitions Nos.
Thereafter, they tried to obtain the leave of the High Court for appealing to the Judicial Committee of Hyderabad, but, while their applications were still pending, the Constitution of India came into force and since the Judicial Committee ceased to function under the new Consti tution they amended their original application by asking for leave to appeal to this Court under article 134 c of the Constitution.
2297, 2298 and 2299 of 1950.
They got upon the terrace of one Kankayya where one Natala Rama Reddy was sleeping, caught hold of him and took him forcibly to the outskirts of the village in spite of the protests of a number of villagers who had followed, and killed him by firing gunshots at him.
After their companyviction, the petitioners appealed to the Hyderabad High Court, but their companyvictions and sentences were companyfirmed.
1 to 14 were ordered to be tried by the Special Tribunal at Nalgon da and 2 letter No.
N. Pritt Danial Latifi and Gopal Singh, with him for the petitioners.
Later on, all the accused marched on the villagers and opened fire at them indiscriminately with the result that one of them received an injury in his right high which subsequently proved fatal, and another received a minor injury on his left hand.
re Newton 139 E.R. 692 , In re Bonomally Gupta 44 Cal.
4234/49 ST, dated 23rd July, 1949, by which cases companyered by charge sheets Nos.
3176/49 ST, dated 7th April, 1949, by which criminal cases companyered by charge sheets Nos.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, and Rajaram Aiyar, Advocate General of Hyderabad, G .N. Joshi, with them for the respondents.
14 and 15 dated the 20th July, 1949.
March 16.
723 , Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs 1942 C. 284 , Ex parte Lees 1868 E.B. E. 828, R. v. Stud dis 1801 1 East 306, Carus Wilsons case 1845 7 Q.B. 984 referred to.
Thereupon the accused chased the remaining villagers, firing their guns, and one of the bullets grazed the middle finger of one of the villagers and caused a slight injury to it.
In accord ance with the Regulation, certain Tribunals were companystitut ed, and one of the Tribunals Tribunal A for Nalgonda dis trict proceeded to try certain cases made over to it by the Civil Administrator of Nalgonda under the powers vested in him by the Military Governor.
Among the cases tried by this Tribunal were also three cases in which the petitioners were companycerned, these being registered as Criminal Cases Nos.
4 fired and hit one of the villagers on the thigh and the latter died.
In the third case Criminal Case No.
The facts are set out in detail in the judgment.
In these charge sheets, the accused were generally referred to as Communists wedded to the policy of overthrowing the Govern ment by violence and setting up in its place Communist Raj, and the specific cases made out against them were briefly as follows.
14 dated the 7th April, 1949, and the other two were Nos.
The version given at the trial in this case was slightly different and shows that the two accused who had visited the village were chased by 50 or 100 persons to a place called Madireddychelka where the other accused joined them, and after parleying with the chasers, accused No.
136 1 of the Constitution Criminal Miscellane ous Petitions Nos.
laneous Petitions Nos.
These cases were based on three charge sheets submitted by one Mr. Hanumantha Naidu, a senior police officer of Nalgonda district, one of which was No.
14, 15 and 16 against the judgment and order dated 19th December, 1950, of the High Court of Judi cature at Hyderabad M. Khaliluzzaman Siddiqi J. in Miscel .
The Regulation provided among other things that the Military Governor may companystitute a Special Tribunal or Tribunals, each companysisting of three members appointed by him, and that he may by general or special order direct that these Tribunals shall try any offence, whether companymitted before or after the companymencement of the Regulation, or any class of offences.
Section 8 of the Regulation empowered the Military Governor to direct, by order, that in such circumstances and under such companyditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction, any power or duty companyferred or imposed upon him by the Regulation may be exercised or discharged by any other authority.
