LexPRATAP SINGH versus THE STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH (NOW MADHYA PRADESH)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 509 PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH (NOW MADHYA PRADESH) JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, K. c. DAS GUPTA, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ. Criminal Procedure-Right of Appeal-Procedure when appel- lant in jail-If discriminatory-Finality of order on appeal-Code of Criminal Procedure r898 (V of I898) ss. 420, 42I, 430-Consti- tution of India Art. r4. The appellant filed an appeal while he was in jail which was summarily dismissed on merits. Thereafter he filed a Memo- randum of Appeal through a pleader which was rejected on the ground that it was not maintainable owing to his appeal ,from jail under s. 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having been dismissed earlier. His review petition before the Judicial Com- missioner was also dismissed but his prayer for certificate under Art. 132(1) was granted. The question was whether s. 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which enables a court to dismiss an appeal filed by a convicted person, while he was in jail, without hearing him offended against Art. 14 of the Constitution. Held, that the Code of Criminal Procedure in giving the right of appeal in Ch. XXXI based it on a classification which was rational and reasonably connected with the object the Legislature had iii view in enacting that chapter. The position of a convicted person in jail, and therefore unable to present an appeal either in person or through a pleader, was entirely diffe- rent and distinct from that of a convicted person who was able to do so. The Proviso to s. 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in no way offends against the provisions of Art. 14 of the Consti- tution. Held, also, that a second appeal from the same judgment of conviction presented through a pleader was not maintainable because the previous order dismissing the first appeal under s. 420 presented from jail was lawful and final under s. 430 of the Code. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1956. Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 7th April, 1956, of the former Judicial Commissioner's 65 November r8. · Pratap Singh 510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] Court, Vindhya Pradesh, Rewa in Misc. Ori. Applica- tion No. 70 of 1956. v. A. D. Mathur for the Appellant. The State 0! B. K. B. Naidu and I. N. Shroff for the Respon- Vtndhya Pradtsh d t · (Now Madhya en . Pradesh) 1960. November 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Imam]. IMAM, J.-The Judicial Commissioner of Vindhya Pradesh granted a certificate under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution of India as in his opinion the case in- volved a substantial question of law as to the inter- pretation of the Constitution. Hence the present appeal. The appellant was convicted under s. 307, Indian Penal Code and s. 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act by the Sessions Judge of Chatarpur. He was sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment under s. 307, Indian Penal Code and to 3 years' rigorous imprison- ment under s. 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act. He filed an appeal while he was in jail which was summarily dismissed on merits on October 28, 1955. Thereafter, on October 31, 1955, he filed a Memorandum of Appeal through a pleader which was rejected on November 1, 1955, on the ground that it was not maintainable owing to his appeal from jail under s. 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having been dismissed on Octo- ber 28, 1955. Thereafter, he filed a petition before the Judicial Commissioner that the order dated Oct-0ber 28, 1955, dismissing his appeal from jail should be reviewed and his appeal should be reheard on merits. This petition was also dismissed by the Judicial Commis- ~oner. The appellant had prayed for a certificate under Arts. 132 and 134( c) of the Constitution. '!;he Judicial Commissioner was of the opinion that no ground had been established for grant of a certificate under Art. 134(c) but a certificate should issue under Art. 132(1). The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the case involves any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. It 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 511 had been urged before the Judicial Commissioner that s. 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which ena- r960 Pratap Singh bled a court to dismiss an appeal filed by a convicted v. person, while he was in jail, without hearing him The state of offended against Art. 14 of the Constitution
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.