LexBIBHUTI BHUSAN CHATTERJEE versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 935 appellant of any of his 'rights under the Code of Crimi- nal Procedure. In conclusion, we wish to add that we have considered in the present case the question if the High Court committed any illegality in passing the two orders, one on June 14, 1956, and the other on August 17, 1956. We have held that the High Court commit- ted no illegality. Nothing said in this judgment should be taken as commending or encouraging a departure from the usual practice which, we understand, is that when an appeal is pending before an inferior court, the High Court exercises, if necessary, its powers of revision after the appeal has been disposed of. There may, however, be exceptional cases where the ends of justice require that the appeal itself be heard by the High Court and in such a case it is open to the High Court to exercise its powers of revision under s. 439, Criminal Procedure Code, of enhancing the sentence after having heard and dismissed the appeal. The present case was an exceptional case of that nature and we do not think that the procedure adopted by the High Court was in any way illegal or prejudicial to the appellant. We find no good grounds for inter- ference by this Court. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal is devoid of merit and direct that it be dismissed. Appeal dismissed. BIBHUTI BHUSAN CHATTERJEE v. THE STATE OF BIHAR (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. SuBBA RAO, JJ.) Court Fee-Certified copies of the lower courts filed along with Criminal Revision Application-Whether chargeable ie•ith Court fees -Court Fees Act, z870 (VII of z870), s. 4, Sch. I, Art. 9. The appellant who was aggrieved by the. orders passed by the Magistrate against him in a proceeding under s. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, took the matter before the High Court at Patna by a Criminal Revision Application and filed along with it the certified copies of the orders passed by the two courts below without any court fees. The High Court took the view that the I959 Romesh Chandra Arora v. The State S. K. Das J. z959 936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1960(1)] z95y practice prevailing in that Court that the said certified copies were chargeable with the payment of court fees was correct and Bibhuli Bhusan was justified by the provisions of Art. 9 of the Sch. I of the Chatterjee Co.urt Fees Act, 1870. The appellant contended, inter alia, that v. the policy which the Legislature had adopted in enacting the The Slate of Bihar provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to supply to an accused person relevant documents free of charge and that it would be inconsistent with this policy to require him to pay court fees on the certified copies of criminal orders and judg- ments. Held, that under s. 4 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, copies of criminal judgments or orders which are intended to be filed before the High Court must bear the court fee stamp prescribed by Art. 9, Sch. I of the Act. J aines Paul Alexander v. J antes Arthur Edwards, I.L.R. 1953 T.-C. 69, approved. Held, further, that in the construction of the provisions of the Court Fees Act, hypothetical considerations about the policy on which the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure might be based would not be relevant. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 1957. Appeal from the judgment and order dated Septem- ber 25, 1957, of the Patna High Court, in Criminal Revision No. 924 of 1957. P. K. Chatterjee, for the appellant. N. S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for the respondent. 1959. October 6. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar J. GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court at Patna, raises a short question about the confitruction of Art. 9 in Sch. I of Court Fees Act VII of 1870 (hereinafter called the Act). A proceeding was instituted against the appellant, Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee, under s. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of the Magistrate of F'irst Class at Bhagalpur; in this pro- ceeding the learned magistrate directed the appellant to execute a bond of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to keep the peace for a period of one year. The appellant challenged this order by his appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge at . . \ •S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 937 Bhagalpur. The appellate judge agreed wi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.