 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 58 Basis of our conclusion 3.40. We ought to add that, in our present Report, in dealing with the issues pertaining to the scope and extent of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, we have not based our recommendations on either of the two views which were expressed in our discussion. We thought that the conclusions, to which we ultimately arrived unanimously and which are the basis of our relevant recommendations, do not need a final decision on this issue. That is why, two members of the Commission, who did not agree with the majority view in this matter, did not think it necessary to elaborate their point of view by writing a minute of dissent, or by suggesting that the theoretical basis of their point of view should be expressly stated in the introductory observations. 3.41. Our conclusion, therefore, is that Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution should be revised as follows:- "(1) Conclusions.-An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court f(a) and (b) as at present] (c) certifies (i) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; and (ii) that in the opinion of the High Court, the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court: Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall be subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause (1) of Article 145 and subject to such conditions as the High Court may establish or require."    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back