Source: http://onelawstreet.com/mohd-arif-v-the-registrar-supreme-court-of-india-ors-2014-9-scc-737/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:42:31+00:00

Document:
facts and the submissions are elaborately mentioned by my learned brother.
deprived of his life except according to procedure established by law.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the CrPC”).
s.374, Criminal Procedure Code, the entire case is before the High Court.
15. In exercise of such power, this Court made Rules from time to time.
of the said Rules occurring in Part VIII deals with the subject of review.
petitioner may supplement his petition by additional written arguments.
there is no special virtue in sanctifying the dismissal by an oral ritual.
Constitution and the law of this country against awarding death penalty.
2. Leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, Shri K.K.
circulation - that is without oral argument.
turn solely upon the skill of counsel who drafts the review petition.
exhaustive reading of Krishna Iyer, J. judgment in P.N. Eswara Iyer v.
collectively apply their minds in Chambers to dispose of review petitions.
manuscript advocacy is as wrong as judicial allergy to arguments in court.
jurisdictions, there was exclusion of public hearing in such cases.
events, new light and other grounds which we find in Order 47, Rule 1, CPC.
piece-meal with truncated parts. That will be avoidance of our obligation.
freedoms which had already been dealt with in Art.13 (corresponding to Art.
to incorporate “due process” from the 5th amendment to the U.S.
671-674, 687 per Bhagwati, J. and at page 720-723 per Krishna Iyer, J.].
“To sum up, 'procedure’ in Article 21 means fair, not formal procedure.
liberty, the procedural safeguards enshrined in Article 21 are available.
upon this aspect amply demonstrate such a divergent approach being taken.
has been upheld in P.N. Eswara Iyer (supra) which is a binding precedent.
by two Courts below namely the trial court as well as the High Court.
be heard only by the same bench which originally heard the criminal appeal.
petition, we would not like to reopen all these proceedings at this stage.
sentence of life imprisonment means life and not a mere 14 years in jail.
India (Constitution Bench), Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, Ashok Kumar v.
W.B., Kamalanantha v. State of T.N., Mohd. Munna v. Union of India and C.A.

References: v.

 Art.13
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.