1. Appeal against acquittal — Filing of plain copy versus certified copy of judgment — Limitation period — Compliance with Section 419, Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1958 Supreme(SC) 11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th February, 1958.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, A.K. SARKAR AND V. BOSE, JJ.
State of U.P., Appellant
Versus
C. Tobit and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 1955.
Advocates appeared
M/s. G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. S. N. Andley, Advocate, of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co., for Respondents.
Advocates:
C.P.LAL, G.C.MATHUR, S.N.ANDLEY
C.P.LAL, G.C.MATHUR, S.N.ANDLEY
Under Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the term "copy" of a judgment accompanying an appeal petition means a "certified copy," as authenticity is essential for judicial perusal and compliance with the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Limitation Act.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Section 419 - Interpretation of the word "copy" - Whether a petition of appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or if a plain copy is sufficient - The word "copy" in the context of Section 419 refers to a certified copy. The purpose of requiring a copy is to enable the appellate court to peruse the judgment for the purpose of summary dismissal or admission and to make interlocutory orders based on authentic materials. Furthermore, the time requisite for obtaining a copy is excludable under Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, and such time can only be verified through a certified copy. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 74, 76 and 65 - Public documents - Judgments are public documents; therefore, under Section 65, only a certified copy is admissible as secondary evidence. This reinforces the requirement that the "copy" mentioned in the procedural code for appeals must be a certified one. (Para 8)
(C) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Section 419 - Power to dispense with the filing of a copy - The court's power to dispense with the requirement of filing a copy is intended for urgent cases or where the copy is already on record; it does not imply that a plain copy is a sufficient substitute in ordinary circumstances. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
An appeal against an order of acquittal was filed within the limitation period, but it was accompanied by a plain copy of the judgment. A certified copy was subsequently filed after the limitation period had expired. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred on the ground that the filing of a plain copy did not constitute sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement of accompanying the petition with a "copy" of the judgment.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the word "copy" used in Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure means a certified copy, and the filing of a plain copy is not sufficient compliance with the law.
Issues: Whether Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires a petition of appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from, or whether a plain copy suffices.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the authenticity of the judgment is essential for the appellate court to perform judicial acts, such as deciding on the admission of the appeal or granting bail. Since judgments are public documents under the Indian Evidence Act, only certified copies are admissible as secondary evidence. Additionally, the mechanism for calculating the limitation period under the Indian Limitation Act relies on the dates provided on a certified copy to determine the time requisite for obtaining the document.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The central issue in this case concerns whether a petition of appeal under the relevant criminal procedure law must be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed against. The Court examined the meaning of the word "copy" within the statutory context and determined that it refers specifically to a certified copy, which is an official, authenticated reproduction of the original judgment (!) (!) .
-
The Court emphasized that the purpose of requiring a copy of the judgment is to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of the record before the appellate court. A certified copy, issued by a public officer with the proper authority and bearing a certificate of its correctness, provides the necessary assurance for judicial proceedings (!) (!) .
-
It was highlighted that the law mandates the filing of a certified copy because it is a public document, and secondary evidence or plain copies do not carry the same legal weight or guarantee of correctness. The use of certified copies helps facilitate judicial efficiency and prevents delays in proceedings (!) (!) .
-
The Court also discussed the importance of the certified copy in enabling the appellate court to perform its functions accurately, including judicial review, issuing notices, and making interlocutory orders. The integrity of the appellate process depends on the correctness of the record, which certified copies reliably provide (!) .
-
The Court acknowledged that the law grants discretion to courts to dispense with the filing of a certified copy in urgent cases, but this exception does not imply that a plain copy suffices in general. The absence of a requirement for a plain copy in the statute and the purpose of the law support the conclusion that a certified copy is essential for filing with the appeal (!) (!) .
-
The Court rejected arguments suggesting that the absence of the word "certified" in the statutory language indicates that a plain copy is sufficient. It clarified that the context, purpose, and related legal provisions point towards the necessity of a certified copy, especially considering the legal importance of accuracy and authenticity in judicial records (!) (!) .
-
The Court ultimately upheld the position that, for appeals under the relevant law, the filing of a certified copy of the judgment or order is mandatory. Therefore, the order of the lower court was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly (!) (!) .
-
The decision underscores the importance of official certification of legal documents in judicial proceedings to maintain procedural integrity and ensure that courts base their decisions on verified records (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the term copy in Section 419, Code of Criminal Procedure, refers to a plain reproduction or specifically requires a certified copy of the judgment. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Analysis of public documents under Evidence Act, purpose of judicial perusal under Section 421 CrPC, and necessity of authentic records for interlocutory orders. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. In the context of Section 419, Code of Criminal Procedure, the term copy means a certified copy to ensure authenticity for judicial decision-making. (Para 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the requirement of filing a copy under Section 419, Code of Criminal Procedure, is satisfied only by a certified copy. (Para 12 )
6. Does the term copy in Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure require a certified copy of the judgment?
Yes. Given the context and purpose—where the appellate court must act upon the document to make judicial decisions—the term copy refers to a certified copy, ensuring authenticity and correctness. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 )
7. Why is a certified copy necessary for proving the contents of a judgment under the Indian Evidence Act?
Judgments are public documents under Section 74. Under Section 65, only certified copies are admissible as secondary evidence for public documents, making plain copies insufficient for judicial proof. (Para 4 , 8 )
8. How does the Limitation Act support the interpretation that a certified copy is required under Section 419 CrPC?
Section 12 allows the deduction of time requisite for obtaining a copy. Certified copies provide verifiable dates of application and delivery, enabling the court to accurately compute the limitation period. (Para 5 )
9. Does the court's power to dispense with the filing of a copy under Section 419 CrPC imply that a plain copy is sufficient?
No. The power to dispense is intended for urgent cases or where a copy is already on record, not to lower the standard of authenticity required for judicial acts. (Para 9 )
Judgment
S. R. DAS, CJI. : The respondents before us were put up for trial for offences under Ss. 147, 302, 325 and 326, Indian Penal code read with S. 149 of the same Code. On July 24, 1953, the temporary Civil Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, acquitted them. The State of Uttar Pradesh apparently felt 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, filed a petition of appeal on behalf of that State. A plain copy of the judgment sought to be appealed from was filed with that petition. The High Court office immediately made a note that the copy of the judgment filed along with the petition of appeal did not appear to be a certified 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 February 25, 1954 when Harish Chandra, J., made an order that the certified copy be accepted and that there days further time be granted to the appellant for making an application under S. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay in the filing of the certified copy. Accordingly an application for the condonation of delay was made by the appellant on the same day and that application was directed to be laid before a Division Bench for necessary orders.
2. The application came up for hearing before a Division Bench 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. 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By their judgment delivered on December 7, 1954, both the learned Judges took the view that no case had been made out for extending the period of limitation under S. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and dismissed the application and nothing further need be said on that point. The learned Judges, however differed on the question as to whether the filing of a plain copy of the judgment appealed from was a sufficient compliance with the law. M.C. Desai J., holding that it was and N. U. Beg, J., taking the contrary view. The two Judges having differed they directed the case to be laid before the Chief Justice for obtaining a third Judge s opinion on that question. Raghubar Dayal, J., to whom the matter was referred, by his judgment dated January 31, 1955, expressed the opinion that the word "copy" in S. 419 meant a certified copy, and directed his opinion to be laid before the Division Bench. In view of the opinion of the third Judge, the Division Bench held that the memorandum of appeal had not been accompanied by "a copy" within the meaning of S. 419 and that on February 25, 1954 when a certified copy came to be filed the period of limitation for appealing against the order of acquittal passed on July 24, 1953, had already expired and that as the application for extension of the period of limitation had been dismissed the appeal was time barred and they accordingly dismissed the appeal. The learned Judges, however, by the same order gave the appellant a
