LexMOHAN LAL MAGAN LAL THACKER versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 c D E F G H . MOHAN LAL MAGAN LAL THACKl<:R v. STATE OF GUJARAT D.ecember 15, 1967 [K. N. WANCHOO, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT, J. M. SHELAT, G. K. MITTER AND C. A. VA!D!ALINGAM, JJ.] Con.Hit11tion of India, Art, 134(1) (c)-Magistrare 11ftcr enquiry under s. 476 Cri111i11al Procedur.e Code ordering prosec11tio11 nf ofiencl<'r- H;:;h Court disn1issin1: revision-High Courr's order 11·hrther 'finriJ order'~Cmificate under s. 134(1) (c) •l'iiether can he granted. . After an enquiry under s. 476 of the C.odc of Critninal Procedure the Judicial Magi•:rate, Baroda, ordered that the appellant he prosecuted for offences under ss. 205, 467 and 468 read with s. 114 of the lllLii\on Penal Cod·o. Jn appeal the Additional Sessions Judge held that the said complaint \Vas justified hut only in respect of the offcnc·~ under s. '205 read \Vith s. 114. 'fhe High Court dismissed the appcllai'1:'s revision pct~ tion but ornnted a certificate under Art. 134(l)(c). The appellant came tt1 d1is Court. On b"half of the respondent S-:at"' !t \Vas contended that the High Court's order d\missing the revision was no_t· a :final order Js it <lid not Jetermin;: the complaint filed hy the t"'fagi~i:rate. nor di.d it dccid~ the controversy hetween the parties. viz •. the St~1te of GuJarat an<l the app·;:ll::int. \vhcthcr the appellant had committed th(.! offence. HELD: (Pn Wanchoo C. J. and Shelat and Vai<lialingam JJ.)-(i) A judgment or order may be final for one purpose and intcrhJcutory .for another or final as to part and interlocutory as to part. The m~a:ling of the two words 'final' and 'interloi:u1~ory' has, therefore to' he c:Jnsit!crcli separately in relation tO the particular purpose for 'vhich it fo required. However, generally speaking a judgment or order \vhich determines the principal matter in question is i!ermed fina1. It may he final although it directs enquiries or is made on an interJocutory rippticat ion or reserve~ liberty to apply, (687 H; 688 A-BJ Salam;m v. Warner, (1891] 1 Q.B. 734, Standard Discount Co .. v. La Grcnge, [18771 3 C.P.D. 67. A.G. v. Great Emtern Rail Co. (1879] 27 W.R. 759, Shutrook v. T11fnel/, [18821 9 Q.B.D. 621. Bozsnn v. Altrincham Urban Cou11ci/. [1903] 1 K.B. 547. Ahdul Reh111011 v. D. K. Cassi111 & Sons. 60 I.A. 76, S. Kuppuswa1ni Rao· v. Tlrr Kin(?, [19471 F.C.R. 180, Mohan1111ad Amin Brothers Ltd. v. Don1inio11 Of India, [19491 P.C.R. 84~. Sardar Svedna Taher Saifuddin Si1'1eh v. The State of B()Jn- bay [1958) S.C.R. 1007, lethanand.and Sons v. The Stale of Uttar Prrrd,!sh. [1961) 3 S.C.R. 754, Premchand Sarramadas v. State o.1 Bi/iar· [19501 S.C.R. 799. State of Uttar Prmle.vh v. Sujan Sin11h. [1964] 7 S.C.R. and State o.f Orissa v. Madan Gopal [1952] S.C.R. 28, referred to. (ii) Th_e order; of the High Court ;n the present case Llisp·~)::;ed of the controversy 'vhether the filing of the complaint aisainst the appellant was jt.istified. The finali.:y of' thfit order Was not to he iud!!c<l by co-rclatinf! th:i't .order "vith the controversy in· the complaint viz._ \vhether the appcl· lant had· committed the offence charged against hin1 1!hcrcin. The fact 685 68G SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 968) 2 S.C.R. that tbat controversy remained aJivc was irrelevant. Consequently the A order passed by the High Court in che revision filed by the appellant was a finul order within the meaning of A~I. 134(l)(c). (693 D-HJ Ramesh v. Patni, (1966] 3 S.C.R. 198, relied on. (iii) The High C.Ourt, before it certifies the case in cases not covered hy clauses (a) and (b) of Art. !34(l)(c), must he satisfied thal it in- volves some substantial question of law or principle. Only a case in- B volving something more than mere ~ppreciation of evidence is contem- plated by the Constitution for the grant of a certificate under Art. 134( I) ( c). The question in the revision petition before the High Court ,.._, whether the filing of a complaint against the appellao: wa> expedient in the intl!Jt~t of juslice. This was a question of faci and thercfort- the J;nml ,>f ccrtificato was not justified. [694 8-FJ l/aripada Dey v. Stare of West Bengal, (1956] S.C.R. 639, and Babu C " .\•n•e of lfllar Pradesh, (19651 2 S.C.R. '17', rolicil on. Per Bacha\vat and Mitter, JJ. (dissenting) :-Wh<i.tPver t~"l is applied an order directing the filing of a complaint and deciding that t.bcrci i9 a pri111a facje case for enquiry inlo an offence is nol a fi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.