Judgement Petition for special leave to appeal from convictions and sentences of death, and for postponement of the execution of the sentences until the hearing of the petition for special leave and, if granted, until the appeal. The four petitioners were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Delhi, sitting with three native assessors, upon a charge, under the Indian Penal Code, ss. 120b and 302 (the former section being enacted by Act VIII. of 1913), of criminal conspiracy to murder in pursuance of which conspiracy a murder was committed. Three of the petitioners were sentenced to death and the fourth to transportation for life. The petitioners appealed to the Chief Court of the Punjab, and the Crown applied to that Court to enhance the sentence upon the fourth petitioner. The Chief Court affirmed the convictions and sentenced all four petitioners to death. The sentences were to be carried out a few days after the date of the present application, which was made on March 3, 1915. Sir R. Finlay, K.C., and Dube, for the petitioners, stated that they were not at present in a position to Law Rep. 42 Ind. App. 133 ( 1914- 1915) Balmukand V. King-Emperor 34 proceed with the petition for leave to appeal as the transcripts of the judgment of the Chief Court and of the evidence had not yet been received in England; they, however, asked the Board to make an order, or a recommendation to the Government of India, for the postponement of the carrying out of the sentences pending the hearing of the petition. Dunne, for the Crown. It was arranged that the petition for leave to appeal should be heard a fortnight after the receipt of the transcripts in England. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by VISCOUNT HALDANE L.C. Their Lordships are unable to advise His Majesty to make any order on the petition for special leave to appeal at this stage. With regard to staying execution of the sentence of death, their Lordships are unable to interfere. As they have often said, this Board is not a Court of Criminal Appeal. The tendering of advice to His Majesty as to the exercise of his prerogative of pardon is a matter for the Executive Government and is outside their Lordships province. With regard to staying execution of the sentence of death, their Lordships are unable to interfere. As they have often said, this Board is not a Court of Criminal Appeal. The tendering of advice to His Majesty as to the exercise of his prerogative of pardon is a matter for the Executive Government and is outside their Lordships province. It is, of course, open to the petitioners advisers to notify the Government of India that an appeal to this Board is pending. The Government of India will no doubt give due weight to the fact and consider the circumstances. But their Lordships do not think it right to express any opinion as to whether the sentence ought to be suspended. (The petitioners were reprieved by the Government of India pending the hearing of the petition for leave to appeal. The petition was finally heard by their Lordships on April 27, 1915, and was dismissed, no ground of appeal being shown which, in their Lordships opinion, brought the matter within the limited class of cases in which the Judicial Committee intervenes in criminal proceedings.)