LexTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus C. TOBIT AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
s.c.n. SUPREMI~ COUR1; REI>ORTS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. C. TOBIT AND OTHERS 1275 (S. R. DAs C. J., VENKATARAMA AIYAR, A." K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BOSE JJ.) Criminal Procedure-Petition of appeal-If must be ac- companied b11 certified copy of jtligment or order appealed against-Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), s. 419. The word 'Copy' occurring in s. 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure means a certified copy and a petition of appeal filed under that section must, therefore, be accompanied by a certi- fied. copy of the judgment or order appealed against. Ram Lal v. Ghanasharn Das, A.I.R. (1923) Lah. 150, referred to. Firm Chota Lal-Amba Parshad v. Firm Basdeo Mal-Hira Lal, A.I.R. (1926) Lah. 404, distinguished. Consequently, where a State Government filed an appeal against an order of acquittal under s. 417 of the Code of Crimi- nal Procedure with a plain copy of the judgment appealed against and put in a certified copy of it after the period of limi- tation prescribed for the appeal had expired and the High Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, that order 'was correct and must be affirmed. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 1955. Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 8. 1955, of the Allahabad High Court in Government Appeal No. 165 of 1954, arising out of the judgment and order dated July 24, 1953, of the Court of the Civil and Sessions Judge at Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1953. G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the appellant. . S. N. Andley, for the respondents. 1958. February 14. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS C. J.-The respondents before us were put up for trial for offences under ss. 147, 302, 325 and 326, Indian Penal Co4e read with s. 149 of the same Code. On July· 24, 195J: the temporary Civil Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, acqmtted them. The State of Uttar Pradesh apparently felt L/S4SCI-6(a) 1958 Fel,ruary H. DctsC. J, 19ii8 f'lie Slate of Uttar Pmrlr~li v. C. Tobit a.nd Otlirr1 Dad C. J. 1276 SUi'HElllE COUHT Rl~POHTS [1968] aggrieved by this acquittal and intended to appeal to the High Court under s. 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under art. 157 of the Indian Limitation Act an appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure from an order of acquittal is required to be filed within six months from the date of the order appealed from. The period of limitation for appealing from the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge on July 24. 1953. therefore. expired on January 24, 1954. That day being a Sunday the Deputy Government Advocate on January 25. 1954. field a petition of appeal on behalf of that State. A plain copy of the judgment sought lo be appealed from was filed with that petition. The High Court office im· mediately made a note that the copy of the judgment filed along with the petition of appeal did not appear to be a certi- fied copy. After the judicial records of the case had been received by the High Court, an application for a certified copy of the judgment of the trial court was made on behalf of the State on February 12, 1954. The certified copy was received by the Deputy Government Advocate on February 23, 1954 and he presented it before the High Court on Febru- ary 25. 1954. when Harish Chandra J. made an order that the certified copy be accepted and that three days' further time be granted to the appellant for making an application under s. 5 of tlie Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay in the tiling of the certified copy. Accordingly an appli- cation for the condonation of delay was made by the appd- hint on the same day and that application was directed to b~ laid before a Division Bench for necessary orders. The application came up for hearing before a Division Beiv;h consisting of M. C. Desai and N. U. Beg JJ. At the hearing of that application learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that as there was, in the circumstances of this case, sufficient cause for not filing the certified copy along with the petition of appeal the delay should be condoned and that. in any event. the filing of the plain copy of the judgment of the trial court along with the petition of appeal constituted a sufficient compliance with the requirements of S.C.R. SUPREME COURT llEPOR'J'S 1277 s. 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By their judgment 1968 delivered on December 7. J 954, both lhe learned Judges
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.