Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (F.B.)
K Subba Rao, Chandra Reddy, Satyanarayana Raju, JJ.
IN RE: PUTTA RANGANAYAKULU
Decided On : 01 September, 1955
The High Court of Madras held that the Appellate Side Rules made by the High Court of Judicature at Madras have no constitutional validity after the coming into force of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the Criminal Rules of Practice, which prescribe that every appeal from the judgment of a criminal court in which a sentence of death or transportation for life has been passed on the appellant will ordinarily be heard by a Bench of two Judges, overrides Rule 4 of the Appellate Side Rules, which provides that, during the vacation of the Court, the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the High Court may be exercised by a single Judge acting as the vacation Judge, except in cases in which such jurisdiction must be exercised under any law or regulation made by the Central Government by more than one Judge. The Court further held that the proviso to Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code, which imposes a mandatory duty on the Court to give to the appellant or his pleader a reasonable opportunity of being heard before summarily dismissing the appeal, does not offend the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
Accused 1 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1955 was convicted under Section 302, I. P. C and sentenced to transportation for life. Accused 2 and 3 were convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each. Accused 1, who was in jail, presented his petition of appeal to the Officer-in-charge of the jail, who forwarded the same to the High Court. It was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1955. During the summer vacation Bhimsankaram J. dismissed the said appeal summarily under Section 421(1), Criminal P.C. Subsequently, on 23-6-1955, all the accused filed another appeal, which was given S. R. No. 15142/55. The question is whether appellant 1 was entitled to file another appeal notwithstanding the fact that his appeal presented through the jail authorities was dismissed summarily.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court of Madras held that the Appellate Side Rules made by the High Court of Judicature at Madras have no constitutional validity after the coming into force of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the Criminal Rules of Practice, which prescribe that every appeal from the judgment of a criminal court in which a sentence of death or transportation for life has been passed on the appellant will ordinarily be heard by a Bench of two Judges, overrides Rule 4 of the Appellate Side Rules, which provides that, during the vacation of the Court, the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the High Court may be exercised by a single Judge acting as the vacation Judge, except in cases in which such jurisdiction must be exercised under any law or regulation made by the Central Government by more than one Judge. The Court further held that the proviso to Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code, which imposes a mandatory duty on the Court to give to the appellant or his pleader a reasonable opportunity of being heard before summarily dismissing the appeal, does not offend the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the Appellate Side Rules made by the High Court of Judicature at Madras have constitutional validity after the coming into force of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the Criminal Rules of Practice, which prescribe that every appeal from the judgment of a criminal court in which a sentence of death or transportation for life has been passed on the appellant will ordinarily be heard by a Bench of two Judges, overrides Rule 4 of the Appellate Side Rules, which provides that, during the vacation of the Court, the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the High Court may be exercised by a single Judge acting as the vacation Judge, except in cases in which such jurisdiction must be exercised under any law or regulation made by the Central Government by more than one Judge? 3. Whether the proviso to Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code, which imposes a mandatory duty on the Court to give to the appellant or his pleader a reasonable opportunity of being heard before summarily dismissing the appeal, offends the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court of Madras held that the Appellate Side Rules made by the High Court of Judicature at Madras have no constitutional validity after the coming into force of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the Criminal Rules of Practice, which prescribe that every appeal from the judgment of a criminal court in which a sentence of death or transportation for life has been passed on the appellant will ordinarily be heard by a Bench of two Judges, overrides Rule 4 of the Appellate Side Rules, which provides that, during the vacation of the Court, the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the High Court may be exercised by a single Judge acting as the vacation Judge, except in cases in which such jurisdiction must be exercised under any law or regulation made by the Central Government by more than one Judge. The Court further held that the proviso to Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code, which imposes a mandatory duty on the Court to give to the appellant or his pleader a reasonable opportunity of being heard before summarily dismissing the appeal, does not offend the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The High Court of Madras held that the Appellate Side Rules made by the High Court of Judicature at Madras have no constitutional validity after the coming into force of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the Criminal Rules of Practice, which prescribe that every appeal from the judgment of a criminal court in which a sentence of death or transportation for life has been passed on the appellant will ordinarily be heard by a Bench of two Judges, overrides Rule 4 of the Appellate Side Rules, which provides that, during the vacation of the Court, the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the High Court may be exercised by a single Judge acting as the vacation Judge, except in cases in which such jurisdiction must be exercised under any law or regulation made by the Central Government by more than one Judge. The Court further held that the proviso to Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code, which imposes a mandatory duty on the Court to give to the appellant or his pleader a reasonable opportunity of being heard before summarily dismissing the appeal, does not offend the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The High Court of Madras held that the Appellate Side Rules made by the High Court of Judicature at Madras have no constitutional validity after the coming into force of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the Criminal Rules of Practice, which prescribe that every appeal from the judgment of a criminal court in which a sentence of death or transportation for life has been passed on the appellant will ordinarily be heard by a Bench of two Judges, overrides Rule 4 of the Appellate Side Rules, which provides that, during the vacation of the Court, the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the High Court may be exercised by a single Judge acting as the vacation Judge, except in cases in which such jurisdiction must be exercised under any law or regulation made by the Central Government by more than one Judge. The Court further held that the proviso to Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code, which imposes a mandatory duty on the Court to give to the appellant or his pleader a reasonable opportunity of being heard before summarily dismissing the appeal, does not offend the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
K. Subba Rao, C. J.
[1] This S. R. No. 15142/55 has been placed before the Full Bench at the instance of Chandra Reddy and Satyanarayana Raju JJ.
[2] The facts that gave raise to the reference may be briefly stated. Accused 1 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1955 was convicted under Section 302, I. P. C and sentenced to transportation for life. Accused 2 and 3 were convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each. Accused 1, who was in jail, presented his petition of appeal to the Officer-in-charge of the jail, who forwarded the same to the High Court. It was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1955.
During the summer vacation Bhimsankaram J. dismissed the said appeal summarily under Section 421(1), Criminal P.C. Subsequently, on 23-6-1955, all the accused filed another appeal, which was given S. R. No. 15142/55. The question is whether appellant 1 was entitled to file another appeal notwithstanding the fact that his appeal presented through the jail authorities was dismissed summarily.
[3] The first argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant (accused 1) is that the Appellate Side Rules made by the High Court of Judicature at Madras have no constitutional validity after the coming into force of the Constitution of India. He contends that the said Rules were made in exercise of the powers conferred on the High Court by Sections 13 and 14 of Acts 24 and 25 Vic. C. 104 and made by the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, 1865 and that after the coming into force of the Constitution, the said statutes had no legal force. To appreciate his argument, the following provisions of the Constitution and the Appellate Side Rules may be read:
Rules of the High Court, Madras, Appellate Side. Introductory Rules.
The following rules and orders are issued under the powers vested in the High Court by Sections 13 and 14 of 24 and 25 Vic. C. 104, by the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, 1865 by the Code of Civil Procedure and by the Court-fees Act and may be cited as "The Rules of the High Court, Madras, Appellate Side". They shall come into force on 1st January 1905 and shall also apply so far as may be practicable to all proceedings taken on and after that day in all causes and matters then pending on the Appellate Side of the Court.
Rule 4: Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained to the contrary the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the High Court, may, during the vacation of the Court be exercised by a single Judge acting as the vacation Judge except in cases in which such jurisdiction must be exercised under any law or regulation made by the Central Government by more than one Judge.
Constitution:
Article 372. (1) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Constitution of the enactments referred to in Article 395 subject to the other provisions of this Constitution all the law in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority.
(2). For the purpose of bringing the provisions of any law in force in the territory of India into accord with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by order make such adaptations and modifications of such law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient and provide that the law shall, as from such date as may be specified in the order, have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made and any such adaptation or modification shall not be questioned in any Court of law.
Explanation 1: The expression "law in force" in this Article shall include a law passed or made by a legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that it or parts of it may not be then in operation either at all or in particula
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
