BURMA LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT

1954

Containing cases determined by the Supreme
Court of the Union of Burma

MR. B. W. BA TUN, M.A., LL.~., Bar.-ai-Law, EDl\Tfm.
U TUN ON, B.A., B.i... (Advocate), REPORTER.

Index prepared by-U TUN MAU~G, B.A., B.L., Bar.-at-Law
. .
DR. MAUNG !\LAUNG, B.L., LL.D., Bar.-at-Law.

Published under the authority of the President of the Union ot
Burma ty the Superint~ndent, Government Printing and
St~tione&y, Burma, Rangoon.

[All rights 1·ese1·ved]
HON'BLE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNION OF BURMA DURING THE
YEAR 1954
1. The Hon'ble Justice Thado Thiri Thudhamma
U THEIN MAUNG, M.A., LL.B., Barrister-at-
La.w, Chief Justice of the Unio"n .
.2. The Hon'ble Justice Thada Thiri Thudhamma
U E MAUNG, M.A., LL.M., Barrister-at-Law
(on leave preparatory to retirement from 1st
July, 1954).
3. The Hon'ble Justice Thado lvlaha Thray Sithu
U MYINT THEIN, M.A., LL.B., Barrister-at-Law.
4. The Hon'ble Justice Thado lvlaha Thray Sithu
U CHAN HTOON, LL.B., Barrister-at-Law (from
7th October, 1954).
LAW OFFICERS OF THE UNION OF BURMA
~ DURING THE YEAR 1954
l. Thada Maha Thray Sithu U CHAN HTOON,
LL.B., Barrister-at-Law, Attorney-General
(from 1st January to 1st October, 1954).
2. Thray Sithu U CHAN TUN AUNG, B.A., B.L.,
Barrister-at-Law, Attorney-General (from 1st
October to 1st December 1954).
'
3. Thray Sithu U CHAN TuN AUNG, B.A., B.L.,
Barrister-at-Law, Assistant Attorney-General
(from 1st January to 18th March, 1954).
4. U CHOON FOUNG alias U 0HN KHIN, B.A., B.L.,
Assistant Attorney-General (from 18th March
to 1st December, 1954).
5. U TIN MAUNG, B.A., B.L., Government Advocate.
6. U MYA THEIN, B.A., Barrister-at-Law, Govern-
ment Advocate.
7. U BA SEIN, B.Sc., B.L., Goverhment Advocate.
8. U KYAW (1), B.A., B.L., Government Advocate.
9. U KYAW THOUNG, Barrister-at-Law, Government
Advocate.
10. U CHIT, B.A., B.L., Government Advocate.
11. U HLA MAUNG, Advocate, Government Advocate.
12. U BA KYAW, B.A., B.L., Government Advocate.
13. U TOE MAUNG B.A. B.L., Government
Advocate. ' '
14. U BA PE, B.A., B._L .,eGovernment Advocate.
15. U MAUNG MAUNG, B.A., B.L., Barrister-at-Law,
Assistant Government Advocate.
16. U NYUNT TIN, B.A., B.L., LL.M. (Yale), Assistant
Goverpment Advocate.
17. U SoB, B.A., B.L., Assistant Government Advocate.
18·. U CHIT TUN, B.A., Barrister-at-Law, Legal
Draftsman.
2

19. U BA THAUNG, B.A., B.L., Legal Draftsman.
20. p LUN PE, B.A., B.L., L,ygal praf~sman.
21. U HLA BAw, B.A.~ B.L., Assistant Lega~
Draftsman.
22. U TuN ·SHEIN, B.A., B.L., Assistant Legal
Draftsman.
23. U HNiT, B.A., B.L., Legal Research Oificer.
LIST OF CASES REPORTED

SUPREME COURT
PAGE
Ali Meah v. The Union of Burma 65
~T:~=~~ ~roE~: 52
Hakim M. A. Rahim v. Subdivisional Judge,
Syriam and two others 1
Maung Tun Sein v. The Union of Burma 11
Pannalal Rangalal v. Tin Tin U 19
Shazadee Begam (a) Khin Khin Nyunt and one v.
P. C. Dutt 34

OO~GOO~~:fBOJ"J~~ 006pGcd3@:GEi)OOO o1 ~ 39
Tan Choo Keng and two others v. Saw Chain Poon
and another 29
The Union of Burma Tan Yu Taik
-~----=--:-:----=----- v. 4
Nazir Ahmed The Union of Burma

U Law Yone v. U Hla Maung 76
Yeo Tong Hoe v. Tan Soon Lee 87
LIST OF CASES CITED

PAGE

Ahmed v. Emperor, A.I.R. (1915) Lab. 106 11
Anandram v. Bholaram Tanumal, A.J.R. (1946)
Bom. J at p. 5 26
Anani Bharthi and another v. Sarup Singh, A.I.R.
(1928) All. 360 27
Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti, A.I.R. (1947)
(P .C.) 189 27
Ashanulla v. The Collector of Dacca and others,
(1888) I .L.R., 15. Cal. 243 at 244 46
Attorney-General for Ceylon v. Kumarasinghege
Don John Perera, (1953) A.C. 200 5

B. c. Naidu v. M. B. Sahib, 56 Mad. 163, followed 36
Bhuboni Sahu v. The King, 16 I .A. 147 69
Bishesswar Pratab Sahi v. Parath Nath and another.
39 C.W.N. 1. at p. 9 46

C.T.P.V. Chetty Firm and others v. Maung Tha
Hlaing and others, 3 -Ran. 322 56
Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd., (1924) 2
K.B.331 I 82

Chatenay v. The Braziliaq_{)ubmarine Telegraph Co.
Ltd., (1891) 1 Q:B. 79 . S9
Chotey Lal v. Sheo Shankar, A.I.R. 0951) All.
478, followed 37

Gandhinagar Motor Transport Society v . The St!J.;te
of Bombay,.A.I.R. (1954) Bo~. 202 46.64
Ganpatrao Appaji Jagtap v: Bapu Bin Tukaram and
others. 44 Bom.. 710 93
X LIST OF CASES CITED

PAGE

In re Abraham Mallory Dillet, (1887) L.R. 12
.
A .C 4 '\)-9 . ... . d . '
... ...
John Oni Akerele v. The King, A.I.R. {1943)
(P.C.) 72 6
Jones v. Hulton & Co. Ltd., (1909) 2 K.B. 444
and (1910) A.C. (H.L.) 20 . 82
~· E . M. Abdul Majid v. M. A. Mador and two
others, (1949) B.L.R. (H.C.) '577 ... 32
Kashmira Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
A.I.R. (1952) (S.C.) 159 i 18
~pppakutti Admeera v. Esoof. (1948) B.L.R.
(H.C.) 411 31
Kyin Hoke v. The Union of Burma, ( 1949)
B.L.R. (H.C.) 154 ... 13
Latifat Hoosain Biswas· v. Emperor. A.I.R. (1928)
: Cal. 725 · · · · · ., · 69
Ma Aye Tin v. Daw Thant, (1940): R.L.R. 831 . ... "56
'
Maple Flock Co. Ltd. y. Uniy!!rs_a~ Furniture
Products (Wembley) Ltd., (1934) 1 K.B. 148 at
156-157 . . . . ! . 24
Maung Ba Tu v. Ma Thet Su and three others,
5 Ran:-: "'-85 ,·: . w ·=~ . , b.fi;' " • ·u · ~ -·~
Messrs. Sha. Moolchand-~ Kesarimun. .r v. •)Messrs:.u
Asso7~af;~d, J\geppies, A.I.R H9':l~). :~a~. fA9
Mohinder $ingh v. The State of ~.unjab, A.I.-g,:-.
(1953) (S.C.) 415 18
~-A-V.R. Chettyar Firm ·v. :-.Maupg' T4an Qaip.g, ' .)

~ ' , t .. ~ ~"' . .
9 Ran: 524 ... · ·... 56
Newstead v. ·London Exptess,Newspapers Ltd; (1940)
'\ I K. B. 337 ... . ··~·.:~ 82
P .L.M.C. T.K!i"Krishnappar:oftetlyar nv. ·'p:L.l'lt'.C.T:
.: ,;:,;- Kasiviswanathan:~:theftyaf-:"(f949) ··B.L.R: 153 93
Pahlad Das v. Ganga SarJn~ A-·1-R. ·(19;>2) ~11. 32.
followed 37
LIST OF OASES CITED: Xl

PAGE

Punjab National Bank Ltd. and one v. S. B.
Chowdhry, A.I.R. (1943) Oudh 392 94
R.V.K.M. Surya Rao Babadur Varu v. The Board
of Revenue, Mac;iras, A.I.R. (1953) Mad. 472 64
Rai Harendra Lal Roy Bahadur Estates Ltd. v
.. Hem Chandra Naskar and another, A.I.R.
(1949) P.C. 179 89
Regina v. Bertrand, L.R. 1 (P.C.) 520 6
Rukhmabai v. Mah~deo Narayan Bundra, 42 Born.
155, followed 35

Saw Chain Poon v. Controller of Rents and eigh ·
others, (1950) B.L.R. (S.C.) 109 31
Seshgiri Narayan Kamat and others v. Venkatash
Laxman Kamat and others. A.I.R. (1927) Born.
221 46
Sharif v. Emperor. A.I.R. (1944) Lab. 472 70
T. G. Chowdhury v. Manmatha Nath Ghatak, A.I.R.
(1949) Cal. 674, referred 0 36
The Duchess Di Sora v. A. L. Phillipps and others.
10 H.L.C. 624 88
-King v. Williams and others, (1914) 1 K.B. 608
at 613 64
~· _ Official Assignee v. Ma Hnin San. ( 19401
R.L.R. 208 56
Paper Sales Ltd. v. Chokkani Bros., A.I.R.
(1946) Born. 429 27
Union of Burma v. Tan Yu Taik, Criminal
Appeal No. 2 of 1953 (S.C.) 17
- Union of Burma v. Tan Yu Taik. S.C. Cr. Misc.
Appln. No.2 of 1953 85
Tun Sein v. The Union of Burma, S.C. Cr. Misc.
Appln. No.4 of 1953 85
U Pe v. Maung Maung Kha, 10 Ran. 261 56
- Saw and four others v. The Union of Burma,
(1948) B.L.R. 249 . . . 6
INDEX
AcTs:
PA.GE

BuRMESE RunnHIST LAw.

CIVIL PHOCF.DURE CODE.
Co::.:TRACT AcT.
EVIDENCE ACT,
LDIITATION AcT.
NAit>:C:GANDAW VINICCAYA THANA AcT.

~CcGcn~8~£OJ~-=>f~cf) 80G8!t
PENAl. CODE.
SAu: OF Guoos AcT.
SUPi!E~IE CoUI~T HULES.
TRANSFS!~ OF !~!~.!0

ABLE P!~OPEHTY (HE~TRICT!O:

Related Interests

) ACT.
UNJON JunrcrAHY AcT.
URBAN RENT CONTROL AcT.
Acco:.iPLICfs, co:-.:Ft'SS!ONS oF-Accomplice turuerl apprm·er ,-claim
c!Jaraclcr of accomplice-Tainted r·ddel/cc, uo cOJI'Oboraiion
of ea.;it otflcr-l:.vidwcc Act, s.11~·, lllustratiou lb} a11d s. 133,
11.A i11comisie11!-Rule of PrttdeiiCC amotttllilll-[ to 1'ttle of law-
Judepe•,dcll t cor robor.tl io1t itt mat cnal Parfiwlars a IICCcssit y-
FiYsl lnformalwu Report-When it is to be r.-co1·ded. Held:
A <:r.nl(:s~ion is a unilateral stiitcment nntt:stec\ bv cross-ex<~mi­
nmion and t!lt" 'onhssion of one accn;cd bY itsel(c; nnot be the
b<l:Sis oi <t con v1crion of :tJH;tllcr In •eg 1rd to an approver the
f; ct that he w; s made a ,,·itntss t:ndl!r tHe provisi011S of s. 377,
Crm inal P ·oledure Code doc:s nm make lds evid.:nce "ntainled
fo .. he remains ar. accomplic(;. Held also: \·Vhere the <::

Related Interests

idcnc:.:
d an approwr is mainly o:• the qL estion of conspiracy,
co ·n:uonttion of suc-h tvidcii<."C in m: terial parlict~lars ~hl'l rld be·
f~<-m •~t,tnintcd sonrces. Latif:d Hoc,:-ai1l Biswas v. Empe1·or,
A I.R. 192~i Cal. 725; Sharif v EmPerot·, A.ll~. (1944! Lab.
472. followed. Hcldalso: ~- 114, lll11stration lb} and s. 13.3,
E1:idence Act are not inconsistent. However, a se\·ere test will
J,,,, e to be made < f an approver's eddencc, and a con\lction
ba~ed ~olely on an arprover's evidence will be a rare ex~,;tption
r:Jtlwt· than a general rule. A rnle of prudence has emerged and
it ,s Sl 'niversally fOllowed as to amount to a rule of I:Jw that it
is : n~afe to convict on the evidenre of an accomplice u!lltss it is
corroborn1ed in mall-rial particulars to implicate the accused.
Bl111baui Saltu v. Tile King, 76 l.A. 147, followc:d. Hc/dfurtllcr:
A Fi!·st Information I?eport has to be recorded under s. 154,
Criminal Proced!1re Code as th~; hrst information Of a cognizable
crime. If it was given and rtcorded only a:ter a Police Officer
hac b("gun investigation, then it was a staten,ent made by
a wit1oes:; in the course of investigation ancl not a statement
t:ncler s. 154, and as such, under s.l62 it will not ordinarily be
admi~s1ble in evidence. ·
Au MEAH v. THE 'C'NION oF BURMA
XIV GENERAL INDEX

PAGE

AC:;El>TA~CE OR RF.JECTlO!': OF OFFICIAl. THANSLATION, HOW
DETER~IISEU 87
ACCURACY OF DF.POSiTIO~S OF \ViT~ESSES, \VHE~ CAN BE CHA.Ll.ENGED 76
ACCUSED DlSAPP.·: R-\.XCi>OF- .APABLE OF ACCEPTABLF. EXPUNATIO:\: 11
ACQUITTAL, LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST \'HEN GRANTED 4
AGREE~IEN'l' \'JHI SJ'ECIFIC TF.RMS l<'0H ~AI E AND PUI~CHASE 0:'
SHIR'IS 1:-1 l.lG!.K-Sales of Goods Act, s. 38 (2)-Payment before
delitoery of lots-Breac/t,s iu payment. wilctlzer contract cau i.e
repudiated-Cant racl Act, ss. n3. 6(J -Tmxe ess;;nce l•f coutract.
waivet of-Notice of rescission, wizen uecessary. Held: If til~
breach !s of sucll .1 kind or t .kes pia,;<.: in s•.t;:h Clrcmns<ances as
reasonablv to lead 10 the i11ien::nce that sitttilar bread1c5 wiil he
commitkd in rt l..1tion to snbs. q t'ent ddi' <:ries or pavments 1ht:
whole contra.::t may there a11d then be r~garded as repudiated and
mav be rescinded. Held: The main test::; to be constdtred i"
applying s. 38 12), Sales oi Goods Act are, first. the ratio qmmtita-
livdy which th~: breach bears to tbe contr:1ct a!'< a whole. and
secondly, the degree of probability Oc improbability that ~nch a
breach will be repeakd. Maple Floc.'.: Co. Ltd.

Related Interests

. Uuh-ersal
Furnifttre Products tWewl;lcyl Ltd., 11934 1 K.B Il~ at 156-13i;
Messrs. Sll a. ill oolcl1 a 11d Kesarimull

Related Interests

. Ncs.~rs ...J ssociat cd Agcncics,
A.II~.~:~42) :-lad.139. Ht:ldfurtker: The ri~l't \o in,ht upon
time bdng of ~he esse<~ce c f the CC>ntrad ~:an only be los' by
another agrecme:n bttween the pmn.isor and the promisee.
:Mere forbearance in re~pect of breac::t s in payments must not be
construed as a wain:r of that right. A1z.::rtdram v. Blzoltralll
Tammzal, A.I.R. 11..946 Bom. 1 atp. 5; Tf;ePaperSalcsLtd. v.
Chokkani Bros., A. LR. [1946} Born. 429; Appalaswamt v.
Suryun•1¥aYana murt i. A.I. R. •( 1947) ( P.C.l 180 : Anani Bh.wthi
mrd c:11otlter

Related Interests

. Sarup Singh . A.I. R (19Z8t All. 360, tol\owed.
Held further: Notice of rescission of the agreement in compliance
with s. 66 of the Contract Act was not necessary in view of
clause 3 of the agreement.
P ANNALAL RANGALAL v. TIN T!N U 19
APPROVER 1 ACCOMPLICE TUNNED APPROVBR RETAD:s CHARACTER
OF ACCOMPLICE 65
{g~G?~l,FJ'YXD? G~::Dcb80G8 52

coed~: ~w?:~S~~5&peoro§I~8<1Gs;JS:~t~ t;oGn~§'):§c: 52

§~lol'J~g:::m:xJ?G~:xJcf.i eoGnn nco&~Sg Gm'JgQ)S:~tEiP eoon5J~8'il~
;JS;~CGp eoGSc'Q§?:§fm OJ")~gd) I Ggj~(,)~OJ~ I OJB:I
:xJ'J:~~§aa~ 8<1Gg~C~?: @&;o1::Dro?:JI QG~:::D~I 0(~
GUJ'J03~Gro?c£p:Oj? ~:o;s~:~ 0~~:~1 rr.e6c£~~81i)COl~~GO:G~
~:D~ oo~ (Suit f.or _.\dminist;aiion ) ~~~~~~ I!Oj?e)8<1~
<;g")CJ6CI~:o;s~:~e~:G8T<ill&;~:nt§t naa:utG:noq:~~~ @:o;s¥::nt§1
~e qG :r§!Gt GGTo 1~ro ~ 9 l>td3G~025 GOJ~:~G§?t:u
~:o;s~: G:D~:G::D')g;)~,, ~:o;s~:~~ GflT~b~~ G01rb~1:Go.:>?
OJ'J: ~'JtGa:pc:~~ OJ~_:_Goo&§: CJ.jj~G[G~@·:£:u G(J'JCGap5:
d)~J Oil~)QC~~:§G~I GC~::Dt§Goo'J~Ii)Cg Go.:>ci?:~©§&;G~'JC:!I
GENERAL INDEX XV

PAGE

52
XVl GENERAL INDEX

PAGE
OJ~ GX9n 110? ::> ::> ~~~I ~5cGoo58~:£P)~':li' mc£80G!3
<;_bG J o (9) 9~ <(~Q J J (o) (~)ii n8?£rog-::t1 BSi\i~qE
91cf.i~ (9~rotf..: ~:w5~tg~(;;~n u8;;t§:~~ roGpGool5G~?~OJ~I
~~OJ'JOd."11 wd3~CGOJ~ 8iit§:~~OOGpGOJ$)"lj?:~ §o1n~
~~~Cg~ll n~t§:mS:wo5 oa~COG'" <fbG ~ wt§1 n<l0j?~5l'
~OJ~:<Jtrto<J a56\E~oS~ ~~cot§~:::n6~~5ro66\~ (l<ev~ew)
GC'jpoSg;p; ::§oot§:GtJtc£ OJ~o08UGDOJ~~O?I c;t:~§::Dc£~6
G~G't~a02® ~g?~:oo?:GOJ'J GcgpaSc}p~~x? ::DoS~tOJt§u
m~Gc:T0?gj¥Goo5$0JaS G03J'JoS~?~?:~~ ::nd3~tG4:lf>1~~~
80G!:JB~'J~:,;c£ OJ~OJGpG~.II rc;6~mc£eo:;n trb::~ ~ D<lei)_'
~cf3~oSxd3~cG::D? mll\lr:n:,oocr ~~5~~ f9~rot§o.?~::D8~:
(95cntw:s1 ~ (Revi<:w) rr.lOJcbl GcgpoS~'JOJt~co?~i~!jj::Dt§•
Od~~("J)':(\) cii:GO:Ei)_~ ~GCO'JroG::D'JD'dGrd.'Jt:~o~d:JG@jil I!~
oot02t:GX'J Gcqj?oS~:GoTOJ&' Go'fQGOJ'J (95cntG)~
oa'f~?S:~,p:wt§l noG§-:;S~ot~~GX'JI ::D9G~S)G::::u?
oa"§')C:Q"'J~gt1X'::03JCI ~:~oosm ~~~<l-'JCCcii:® GO~~s
OJfBii •!ro?ro:ut§:ro~t::::uoS md3eo:o~ yEG j 9~ ~:x>oS~E
GOJ) 0'Jgj~Gc:>)"lP:na06oS Gcgpo5~1m~~1~-::![m?:l -GcgpoS
~:x>~ I 8S~:J: OJS()~80GDOOGO~®oo'J:GOJ'J ::::ucfl::::u':l~~
Ei)_GOd'JtGro-;cB1 d)~ ~~C ~G::::U? m~~GJ'J!~OJ'J03JCI O?'JOJ
0t§:mS:xoS GEi)_OJo5t;p<J6C 9]~o;:8,g~ g{::D~::Dt§n
[(Ashamtlla v. Tne Collector of D,,cca a111i others, I L.R. 15
Cal. 243 <It 244; Gaudhi11agm· Motor T:at•sPorl Society v
State of Bombay, AU~. (19~4) Bcm. 202 at 203 ~lP~~ ~:en?~
::Dt§ll] O?OO ~§1~1 8?£oo~j:'~OdrfJeDGQ <(~Y j j (o)(~)
m"' 1~5cGoo~8?£mg?<j>~ SSdi3!ilt~o5dHj~ro8~;~8 @Soo6
G@?E:~~cs?~;~;: 'sbnorf.ieucoo q'b(,} J o ( 9) m 61 1
8-t>t"§:~t,oot;pGro>3<op:~t§ I~G~'J!J::l~~~ :x>aS~f,;p§o 1n1Q:l~1oo
robpGOJ~fij'J~~ ~"U llo11 ~Ui~Es~?P~~~~~ ~xro~CG:x>')
8;;ii:~~.;ot;pGroS9]'J~~~ ~Eoc§t~~ G§pf:)l.j:GooS'iicraEu10Jt§n
OOS()G:nS) ~:e3::r:>'J::D (GY~')6)5~~) ~§ roS()Go:i>)
8~GG't00J u[ ~ ( G;.I'J.r:-q8~§S: ~Ei)_O{~'J:) ••• 3<}

CIVIL PROCEDUHE CODE, 0IWER 23, Rl'l.E 1 (3)-Wilen·er bar to
a subsequcut suit fo"l· ejectment- · Sul:jc I mat! cr"-Urban Reut
Coutrol Act, s 14-A-Pcrmit to sue for eJectment, whether e/fect-
it•c for a S1lbseqltent suit. A ~·:it 1..~ ejectment it.s!ilukd w•lh a
permit isstH::d by th~ l~eut Controller w:~s withdrawn because
of an invalid Notice tn q11it. A subsequent ~uit was filed haso::d
upon a lresh and vahd Notice: nv new pe mit was sought from
the Rent C.Jntroller. Held: Order 2 '· l{ule 1 (3), Civil Procedure
C•>de i~ no bar to a fr,·•dl ~j -etment ..;t•lt "he~e an initial suit had
failed bo::canse the subj~.:d-1natters in the twu suits were nut the
same. Rn~hmabai ..; . Maliadeo·Narayan Bzmdra, 42 Born. 155;
PAGE.

• B. C. Naidu

Related Interests

. llf. B; Sallil·. 56 Mad. 163, followed.Held also:

The withdrawal oi the first suit owing t\• a technicality did not
exhaust the permit which was one to sue the tenant in respect of
a particular tenancy, and thus it remains effective for the purpose
of a subsequent suit. T. G. Cltowdlmry v. ltlaumat!Ia Natlt
Glzatak, A.l.R. (1949) Cal. 674, dissented !rom. Cltotey Lal v. SI!Co
Slzaukar, A.l.R. (1951) All. 478; Pall lad Das v. Ga11ga Saritz,
.1\.l.R (1952) All. 32, followed.
SHAZADEE BEGA?.l (a) KHIN K"HIN NYUNT AND ONE· V. P. C.
DuTT ••• 34
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION-THOUGH NOT SPECIFICALLY NAMED, IF
UNDERSTOOD TO REFER TO HIM, A PERSON CAN COMPLAIN 79
CONTRACT ACT, SS. 63 AND 66 ... 1!)
CRDflNAL TRv.. r..--Acquitlal-Lcave to appeal against-Union Judi-
ciary Act, s. 6-Whcu grtwled-Intcrest of C1·owtz to etP:;.ure
admitzistratiou of justice. Held: Leave to appe<ll under s.' 6 of
the Union Judidar)' Act will be J.!Tanted when it is shown lliat
by a disregard of the forms of legal process or by some
violation of the principles of natural justice or ollierwise,
substantial and gr~ve ipjustice has been done or that injustice
of a serious ana sutstantial character l1as occurred. In re
Ab,·ah(lm Mallory Dilld, (' 8S7} L.R~ 12 A. C. 459; Jolm
Oni Akcrelc v. The King, A.I.R. {L943) (P.C.) 72, followed.
Attorney-General for Ceylo1t v. Kttmarasittghet,e Don John_ Perera,
(1953} A. C. 200; USaw a1tdjourotl1ers v. The Uuion ofBztrma,.
(1948) B.L.R. 249, referred to. Hcldftwthcr: Tho interest of the
Crown to ensure the due administration of justice in individual
cases and preserving the dut: course of procedure generally is as
great as that of the individual. Regina

Related Interests

. Bertrand, L.R.
1 (P.C.I S20,~followed.
THE UNION oF BURMA TAN Yu TAlK

NAZIR AHli!RD
v.------------------
THE UNION OF BURMA 4
DECREE FOR REcovERY oF Poss:Ess1oN NOT BE.ARir:w ·IN PRoCEEDING
TAKE~ UNDER s. 12 oF THE URBAN RENT Coz:<TROL A~'l'
DECREE-HOLDER WITH PERMlT UNDER s. 14-A OF THE URBAN RENT
CONTROL ACT CAN SUE FOR EJECT!>lENJ.' 4GAINl)T STATU1'0lfi
TENANT ON GROUNDS SPECIFIT!D IN S. 13 ~.. ·- 29
DEFAMATION 79<
> '

DENUNCIATION BY DECEASED IN DYING CONDITION VALUE oF-
Circumst auces nullifying acwracy o!' · idetftiftcation-Dio-
appearatlce of accused capable. of acceptq.ble e~planal{ou-Gravc
and Stlbstmzlial -itdustice-Test for interfeYencJ·' in' criminal
cases. Held: :when a conviction rests up')n a d emmciation it is
necessary to exercise caution in appraising its .
evidentiary
value. KYi1t Hoke v. The Uttion of Bur·ma,1 RL,R: (1949) H.C.
154, referred to .. Held. Though a denunciation .was made by
the deceased, grave doubts exist as to the reli;tbility of his
identification as, \Vhether there was moonlight or flashlight, the
fact that the assailants were so completely covered and
disguised and who uttered. no sound, r'~ud~red a correct
identification difficult if not altogether impossible. Held also :
The disappe:-rance Of . the two alleged assaiiants from the
village was not inconsistent with their innpcence as they
might I) ave run away, Jo avoid 'violent retaliati_OJl for a crl:me-

2
~Vlll

PAGE

they h;::d not committ<:d. Altwed y. EmPeror, A.I.R. (l915t
Lab. 106. Held further: This Court will not ordinarily
interfere in criminal cases uriless ~rave and l:ubstattti<d
injustice have otcurred. Un:on ·o.r
Burma v. Tan l"u Taik,
Criminal Arpeal No. 2 of 1953 (S.C.i : Kasltmira Si11g/l v. The
State of Madhya Pradesh, A. I.H. ll9S.?) tS.C.) I59 ; Moltinrlci·
Singh v TlreStafeojPtmjab, A.l.R. (1953) (S.C.) 4f5.

MAUNG TUN SEJN V, Tf!E U~m>N- OF BUR)IA 11
±YocmtENT I~ FoREIGN LANGU;ti';"F-illearri1tg of e., prcssious, · qucst1otz
(If fact-How i11tcrprct£d....._Evidcncc Act.- s. 98-f'1·acticc of
Courts-Acceptance or rejection of official translation, how
defcrmiucd-Evidmce Act, s. 92, Proviso 6-:;-Admissilm of
,, extri11-sic c;ndwce, wlten maPPUcablc. Hrld: \Yhen· a contrad
is made in a foreign lanj!uage, the. Court, l:aYinJ! to con~trur.:
it, must first oblain a translalion_of th::- instrument, and secondly
an explanation of the terns. 'fre meaning of words and phrases
in the :!greement m·tst be defennined h'y the Courtlikenn)•other
question of fa~t afttt taking cvid~nce thereon as providetl for by
s. 9/'\ of the E'idence Act. Tlu~ Duchess Di SoYa v . .4. L, PT!i/lipps
andotJurs, 1G H.L.C. 624; Chatcttay

Related Interests