LexSTATE OF GUJARAT versus RAMPRAKASH P. PURI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A n C- D E H 875- STATE OF GUJARAT v. RAMPRAKASH P. PURI AND ORS. October l 6, 1969 (V. RAMASWAM! AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898) '. "" 417, 419;-Bombay l/igh Court Appellate Side Rules. 1960 (a• applicable I~ Gu1arat H111h· Court), r. &-Rule al/owing joint appet.:.l by persons aggr1eved by sa111e judg1nent-Joint appeal by State against acq11ittal of several persons a/lei .. t1 joint trial 11•hether 1i/£;intc.inab.le. The relipondcnts were trieJ jointl¥ _and acquitted. by a c~mmo°: jud~· n1cnt. The State of Gujarat filed a 101nt appeal against their a~qu1ttal in. the High Court. Rule 6 ol the Bombay High Court _Appellate Side Rules. J 960 (which we're applicable to tho proceedings. Ill the Guiarat High Court) provided for joint appeals by persons aggrieved by a _common judgment or ordt!r. There was howe\'cr ?? .rule spcclfically pro~1d1ng for ~imilar joint appeals by the State. A D1v1s1~n Bench of the High Court Ji1'missed the joint appeal by the State against the respondents on the ground that suc!l an appeal \\.-as not maintainabl~. The D.ivision Bene~. held that the decision by a Full Bench of the Htgh Court m La/u Ida s ,·ase in which a contrary ·~tiew had been taken, was not b1n<l1ng on the· Division Bench. Jn appeal to this Court against the judgment of the Division~ Bench. HELD : (i) The Division Bench was in error in not treating as bind- ing the earlier decision of a Full Bench of the same court on the same question. 1877 A-Fl Mahadeolal Kanodia v. The Adn1inistrator Getien;.l of West Bengal, 11960] 3 S.C.R. 578, Jai KGur & Or.<. v. Sher SinRh etc. (1960] J S.C.R. 975, Atma Ram v. State of Punjab & Ors. [1959] I S.C.R. 748. Jaisri .fohu v. Raj Dewan, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 558 and Bur/ha Singh v. Laltu Singh, I.LR. 37 All. 604 (P.C.), applied. (ii) Rule 6 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules does not in terms cover the c.ise of an appeal by the State against several accused persons jointly tried and acquitted by the trial court by a common order, hut if an appeal by persons jo_intly tried and convicted is competent, then on J*inciple it is difficult to negative the maintainability of one appeal hy the State against a common order ac(iuitting several persons tried jointly. Like all rules of procedure this rule demands a construction which would' promote lhe cause of justice and not obstruct it. [878 D-F] A joint appeal by the State against seve·ral accuc;ed person<; acquit!cd at a joint trial is not contra.Ty to any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is therefore not legally prohibited. Sections 258, 410. 417, 419 or 423 of the Code do not indicate anv har as was wgge•tcd by the order of the High Court. Indeed the plain reading of s. 417 which pro- '·idcs for ary ·appeal in a case an<l not against an accused person, seems to be wide enough to permit a joint appc:ll. The matter being: on~ of mere form it calls for a liberal aporoach requiring the appeal to be heard on its merits. The order of the High Court mu•t accordingly be set a.ide. [878 G-H; 879 C-F] 876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970] 2 S.C.R. Rabari Ghelo Jadav v. State of Bomba,v, A.LR. 1960 S.C. 748, -explained. Lalu le/a v. Stnte of Gujarat, A.LR. 1962 Guj. 125, approved. CllIM'INAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. 60 and 63 of 1965. Appeals from the judgment and order dated November 20, 1963 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 951 .a:1ld 796 of 1963 respectively. · Urmila Kapur and S. P. Nayar, tor the appellant. The respondent did not appear. A B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C Daa, J. These two criminal appeals (Nos. 60 and 63 of 1965) -W:ith certificate raise a common question and are, therefore, being -disposed of by a common judgment. The Gujarat High Court also • recorded the main judgment only in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1%~ ' • The ques1ion which arises for determination is whether, where several accused persons jointly tried have been acquitted by the trial Court, the State can prefer one appeal against the acquittal of all of them. The High Court held such a joinb appeal not to be maintainable under Cr. P.C. and so holding rejected the appeal by the State without going into the merits. The Division Bench of the High Coun speaking through Raju, J. recorded a very lengthy order though the reasoning in support of the non-mai~tainability of the joint appeal is conf
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.