Secondly, I understand the whole reason for the transference of these powers is that we want that our own judges may decide our cases according to our standards of justice and our mental outlook and thought and therefore I think that every Indian who had filed an appeal will have the mental satisfaction of his case being decided by the courts in India. Then fact that appeals have been filed need not be a reason for continuing these appeals in a country other than India. The mere fact that an appeal has been lodged cannot constitute a good reason for continuing the appeals in that court. Moreover, it is an accepted proposition that the same judges who heard the case at the time of granting leave should decide the case ultimately. Now we have just got an example of this principle when Dr. Ambedkar moved his amendment No. 20 substituting sub-clauses (b) and (c) and it is but meet that the case must remain in the same hands. If at the time when the special leave is given any remark in respect of any legal principle involved or any fact in the case is made by the judge who admitted the case, it would be difficult for any judge subsequently to get over the effect of those remarks and the accused will either be deprived of the advantages of these remarks or will be unduly prejudiced by them if another judge was called upon to decide the case later. Therefore on all these grounds, nothing will be lost if all these cases which are in a preliminary stage where only an appeal has been lodged are transferred back to the courts here. I am clearly of opinion that clause (c) of clause 4 should be deleted. (Amendment No. 22 was not moved.)
