Privy Council

Gangadhar Tilak vs Queen-Empress

Privy Council · Decided on 19 November 1897 · Citation: (1897) 25 IndApp 8

HON’BLE JUDGES
Chancellor, Hobhouse, Davey, Richard Couch, 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

1 paragraphs · 139 words

Chancellor, J. 1. Their Lordships are of opinion, taking a view of the whole of the summing-up, which is of very great length, that there is nothing in that summing-up which calls upon them to indicate any dissent from it, nor any necessity to correct what is therein contained, looking at the summing-up as a whole, and looking at each part of what was said by the light of what else was said. Speaking generally of the argument which has been presented to their Lordships, they are of opinion that no case has been made out consistently with the rules by which their advice to Her Majesty has been hitherto guided in giving leave to appeal in criminal cases; and, therefore, they will humbly advise Her Majesty that this is not a case in which leave should be granted.