STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus R. B. AGARWAL

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 462 · Decided: 04-02-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH 
v. 
R. B. AGARWAL 
February 4, 1966 
A 
(P. 
. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. ]., K. N. WA1'CHOO, J.C. SHAH, 
B 
S. M. SJKRI AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.j 
CoMtilllllon of Indio Art. 134( I)( c)-Hlgh Cornt acquiu p'1'sorr 
convlcttd by trial court-State's applit:otlon /or certi{icatl, II corrtp.i1nt. 
If an accused person is convicted by the trial court and on appeal to 
the High Court, his conviction is set aside the State is entiUed to apply 
to the High Court for certificate under Art. l34(l)(c). Such an appli-
cation cannot be rejected In I/mine on the ground that it is incompetent; 
it has to be entertained and considered and decided on the merits. (465 
DJ 
The relevant words in Art. 134(1 )(c) 
are wide in their 
•weep. 
They authoriae an application for a certificate from any judpnent, final 
order, or sentence in a crimioal proceeding of a High Court. 
The sweep 6f the relevant words used in Art. 
134(1 )(c) being very 
wide, it is not necessary to took for any separate provision in the Cons11-
tution which would correspond to a. 417 Cof!e of Ctiminal Procedure. (464 
HJ 
Observations contra in S. Maiumdar v. A. Brahmachari and Others, 
Cr. A No. 21 of 1960, dt. 14-9-1964 and Start Government, Madhya 
l'rad~h v. Ramakrl.thna Ganpatrao 
Llmsey and 
others A.l.R. 1954 
S.C. 20, disapproved. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURJSDJCTION : Criminal Appeal No. 178 
of 1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
August 26, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) 
at Lucknowin S. C. Appeal No. 85 of 1965. 
O. P. Rana, for the appellant. 
R. K. Garg, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Gajendragadkar, C. J. If an accused person is convicted by 
the trial court, but on appeal to the High Court is acquitted, can 
the State move the High Court under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Consti-
tution for a certificate that the case in question is a fit one for appeal 
to the Supreme Court? That is the short question which arises in 
this appeal by special leave. 
The respondent R. B. Agarwal was committed to the sessions 
for trial by the Judicial Officer, Lucknow under sections 467 and 
471 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Assistant Sessions 
Judge who tried his case, dropped the charge under section 471, 
but convicted the respondent under s. 467, l.P.C. and sentenced 
c 
E 
G 
H 
·' 
\ 
• 
. 1 
u. P. STATE v. AGARWAL (Gajendragadkar, C./.) 
463' 
A 
him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a 
fine of Rs. 10,000/· and in default to undergo further rigorous 
imprisonment for a period of two years. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The respondent challenged the said order of conviction and 
sentence by preferring an appeal before the High Court of Judica-
ture at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The High Court allowed 
the respondent's appeal, set aside the order of conviction and 
sentence imposed on him by the trial court, and directed that he 
should be acquitted. The appellant, the State of Uttar Pradesh, 
then applied to the High Court for a certificate under Art. l34(1)(c) 
of the Constitution. The High Court has rejected the said ap-
plication on the ground "that in view of the latest pronouncement 
of the Supreme Court in S. Majumdar v. A. Brahmachari and 
Others('). Article 134 does not provide for an appeal to the Supreme 
Court from an order of acquittal by the High Court". It is this 
order refusing to entertain the appellant's application for certi-
ficate on the ground that it is incompetent under Article 134(l)(c). 
which is challenged before us by the appellant in the present 
appeal. 
Mr. Rana for the appellant contends that the words used in 
Art. l34(l)(c) are plain and unambiguous, and they do not justify 
the view taken by the High Court that it is not open to the State to 
move the High Court for a certificate in a case where the High Court 
has set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the 
trial court against an accused person. Article 134(1)(c) provides that 
an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, 
final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court 
in the territory of India if the High Court certifies that the case 
is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. It will be noticed 
that in tLe present appeal, we are not concerned with the question 
as to whether the application made by the appellant for a certi-
ficate should be granted or not; that is a part of the merits of the 
enquiry which the Hig

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.