Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : JAGMOHAN REDDY
N.V.Bhaskara Rao - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 01-13-66
DETENTION - COURT FEES - EXEMPTION - PRISONERS - COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1956, SECTION 67(10) - ANDHRA COURT FEES ACT, 1956, SCHEDULE II, ARTICLE 11(S) - APPELLATE SIDE RULES, RULES 35, 52, 55(4).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were detained under the Defence of India Rules, filed petitions challenging the legality of their detention. The office raised several objections, including the requirement of court fees and compliance with certain procedural rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were entitled to the exemption from court fees under section 67(10) of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, as they were prisoners. The court also waived certain procedural requirements, such as the need for personal appearance and the use of white paper, due to the circumstances of the petitioners' detention.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to exemption from court fees under section 67(10) of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. 2. Whether the procedural requirements of the Appellate Side Rules could be waived in the circumstances of the petitioners' detention.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 67(10) of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 exempts petitions by prisoners from court fees. The court held that the petitioners, who were detained under the Defence of India Rules, were prisoners and therefore entitled to the exemption. 2. The court has the discretion to waive procedural requirements in the interests of justice. In the present case, the court waived certain requirements, such as the need for personal appearance and the use of white paper, due to the circumstances of the petitioners' detention.
Final Decision: The court waived the objections raised by the office and allowed the petitions to be filed.
( 2 ) MR. Advocate-General states that there are instructions to the Jail authorities that on the applications being presented to the Superintendent of Jail for being presented to the Court, the Superintendent of Jail must transmit them to the Court. These instructions are. complied with, and in any case, I find that it will not be expedient in the present circumstances to insist the detenues to be brought here merely to present the petitions. The rule will have to be suitably amended for allowing for the exception in the case of detenues. The compliance with it is waived accordingly.
( 3 ) IN so far as the second objection is concerned, when the Rules do not provide for authorising for either any advocate or attorney, for the same reasons, that objection also is waived. (3) Under rule 52 of the Appellate Side rules when a petition is presented by a party it shall be signed or marked by him, and such signature or mark shall be acknowledged before the Officer and persons mentioned therein who shall certify in the form set forth in the said rule. The form set forth in the rule is as follows :- "the contents of this petition Were explained by me, and the signature or mark (Signatures or marks) made (or acknowledged) before me on the day of 196. " rule 52 omits any such certification in the case where the petition is presented by an advocate. The Superintendent of Jail has merely attested it without the necessary certification.
( 4 ) HE could just have easily complied with this rule. This matter is brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Jail viz. , that in cases where detenues have signed petitions, they must comply with this rule, and append a certificate in the terms set out therein. For the present, this requirement is waived inasmuch as all the detenues have themselves in their own hand not only made the petitions but also drawn out the contents of the affidavits which they have sworn to. They will be deemed to have understood the nature and tenor of the application, and the affidavit. (4) and (5) Since petition No. 1 has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, copy of the order under G. O. Ms. No. 1190 of 1964 sought to be quashed shall be filed duly stamped with a Court-fee of Rs. 2 and that the Writ Pelition should be stamped with a Court-fee of Rs. 100 under Article 11 (s) of Schedule II of the Andhra Court-fees Act, 1956.
( 5 ) TAKING the 5th objection first, the office have cited a derision in Loganatha Naicker v. Kuppammal, (1961) 1 M. L. J. 149. in support of the contention that the exemption cannot be granted inasmuch as detention in prison does not relate to any conviction. It is farther submitted that otherwise the entire civil litigation will be prosecuted invoking the provisions of clause (10) of section 67 without payment of any Court-fee. I cannot accept this
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.