Privy Council

Balmukund and others vs King-Emperor

Privy Council · Decided on 3 March 1915 · Citation: (1915) AIR(PC) 29

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ameer Ali, George Farwell, Atkinson, Lords Dunedin, Viscount Haldane, JJ.
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 151 words

Viscount Haldane, J.

Their Lordships are unable to advise His Majesty to make any order on the petition for special leave to appeal at this stage.

With regard to staying execution of the sentence of death, their Lordships are unable to interfere. As they have often said, this Board is not a Court of Criminal Appeal. The tendering of advice to His Majesty as to the exercise of His Prerogative of pardon is a matter for the Executive Government, and is outside their Lordships'' province. It is, of course, open to the petitioner''s advisers to notify the Government of India that an appeal to this Board is pending. The Government of India will no doubt give due weight to the fact, and consider the circumstances. But their Lordships do not think it right to express any opinion as to whether the sentence ought to be suspended.

No order made.

Order accordingly.