Sir, the other day while dealing with article 110 there was a long and elaborate discussion on the subject as to whether the Supreme Court should have the right of hearing appeals in criminal cases or not. That discussion was not very relevant to the discussion of article 110, but no objection was raised to that and you also were pleased not to object to that discussion. The reason obviously was that everyone of us realised that a discussion on that question was very necessary and that we should have a preliminary discussion on that subject before article 112-B which has now been moved today by Dr. Ambedkar should come up for discussion so that a solution could be found which might cover the various view-points that were raised that day. That discussion served the useful purpose for which it has been initiated and we found that when we came up to 112-B on the following day, Dr. Ambedkar suggested that its consideration might be held over and on the following day we found to our satisfaction that Dr. Ambedkar had given notice of an amendment which now appears as amendment No. 23. Not only that, but on the following day we were still more happy to find that even Mr. Munshi had given notice of another amendment which now appears as No. 27 according to which the scope of amendment No. 23 standing in the name of Dr. Ambedkar’s amendment No. 23 conceded the right of appeal only in such cases in which sentence of death had been passed by the High Court in appeal against acquittal, Mr. Munshi’s amendment further extended the scope to also those cases in which death sentence was passed by the High Court even in revision.
