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