SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(SC) 286

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
18th November, 1960.
S.J. IMAM, J.L. KAPUR, K.C. DAS GUPTA, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Pratap Singh, Appellant
Versus
The State of Vindhya Pradesh (now Madhya Pradesh), Respondent.
Criminal Appeal 106 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. D. Mathur, Advocate, for Appellant; M/s. B.K.B. Naidu and I. N. Shroff, Advocates, for Respondent.

Advocates:
A.D.MATHUR, B.K.B.Naidu, I.M.SHROFF

Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows for the summary dismissal of appeals filed by convicted persons in jail, does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1898 - SECTION 421 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLE 14 - DISMISSAL OF APPEAL FILED BY CONVICTED PERSON IN JAIL WITHOUT HEARING - VALIDITY - NO VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act. He filed an appeal while in jail, which was summarily dismissed on merits. He then filed a second appeal through a pleader, which was also rejected on the ground that it was not maintainable. The appellant challenged the validity of Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows for the summary dismissal of appeals filed by convicted persons in jail, arguing that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that there is a rational basis for the classification of convicted persons into three categories: (1) those who present their appeals in person, (2) those who present their appeals through a pleader, and (3) those who are unable to present their appeals in person or through a pleader. The Court found that the different treatment of these categories is justified by the need to ensure that appeals are properly considered by the Appellate Court.

Issues: Whether Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows for the summary dismissal of appeals filed by convicted persons in jail, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution because there is a rational basis for the classification of convicted persons into three categories: (1) those who present their appeals in person, (2) those who present their appeals through a pleader, and (3) those who are unable to present their appeals in person or through a pleader. The Court found that the different treatment of these categories is justified by the need to ensure that appeals are properly considered by the Appellate Court.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal.

Judgment

IMAM, J. : The Judicial Commissioner of Vindhya Pradesh granted a certificate under Art. 132 (1) of the Constitution of India as in his opinion the case involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Hence the present appeal.

2. The appellant was convicted under S. 307, Indian Penal Code and S. 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act by the Sessions Judge of Chatarpur. He was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under S. 307, Indian Penal Code and 3 years rigorous imprisonment under S. 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act. He filed an appeal while he was in jail which was summarily dismissed on merits on October 28, 1955. Thereafter, on October 31, 1955, he filed a Memorandum of Appeal through a pleader which was rejected on November 1, 1955, on the ground that it was not maintainable owing to his appeal for jail under S. 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having been dismissed on October 28, 1955.

3. Thereafter, he filed a petition before the Judicial Commissioner that the order dated October 28, 1955, dismissing his appeal from jail should be reviewed and his appeal should be reheard on merits. This petition was also dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner. The appellant had prayed for a certificate under Arts. 132 and 134 (c) of the Constitution. The Judicial Commissioner was of the opinion that no ground had been established for grant of a certificate under Art. 134 (c) but a certificate should issue under Art. 132 (1).

4. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the case involves any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. It had been urged before the Judicial Commissioner that S. 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which enabled a Court to dismiss an appeal filed by a convicted person, while he was in jail, without hearing him offended against Art. 14 of the Constitution as it discriminated between him and a convicted person who presented his appeal either in person or through a pleader.

5. Before we consider whether S. 421 of the Code offends against the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution it is desirable to set out shortly the scheme of appeals under Chapter XXXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure before its amendment which came into force in 1956. Section 404 expressly states that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided for by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force. This provision is in accordance with the general principle that no appeal lies as a matter of rights unless the right of appeal is conferred by law. There are various provisions in Chapter XXXI providing for an appeal from various orders and sentences passed by the Criminal Courts. Section 410 enables any person convicted at a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge to appeal to the High Court. The Court of Judicial Commissioner, Vindhya Pradesh, was a High Court for the purposes of the Code. The appeal of the appellant from jail against his conviction and sentence by the Sessions Judge therefore lay to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner. Under S. 418 an appeal may lie on a matter of fact as well as a matter of law, except where the trial was by jury, in which case, the appeal would lie only on a matter of law, except in a case where a person had been sentenced to death, his appeal would lie on a matter of fact as well as a matter of law although he was tried by a jury. The Section also enables any other person convicted at the same trial with a person so sentenced to appeal on a matter of fact as well as a matter of law. Section 419 enjoins that every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his pleader and every such petition shall, unless the court to which it is presented otherwise directs, be accompanied by a copy of the judgment or order appealed against and in cases tried by jury a copy of the heads of the charge record






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top