A High Court has the jurisdiction to certify an acquittal as fit for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134(1)(c).

1. This application by the State for a certificate under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court, is laid before us in accordance with the orders of the Bench by which it was heard. The opposite party was tried before a Magistrate for the offence of S.14(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Act read with para 76 of the Provident Fund Scheme. The Magistrate convicted him, but on appeal the Sessions Judge acquitted him. The State preferred, an appeal from the acquittal which was dismissed by our brothers, Vishnu Datta Bhargava and Takni. The question raised in the appeal before them was of the effect of the number of workmen employed in a factory falling below fifty after the scheme had come into force.
It was held by them that after the number of workmen employed in a factory by the opposite party fell below fifty, he was not bound to implement the scheme and could not be convicted under S.14(2) of the Act. The State wants a certificate under Art.134(1)(c) on the ground that the question of law decided by our learned brothers is of sufficient importance to justify its being raised before the Supreme Court.

2. Art.134(1) of the Constitution is as follows :
"An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court ........... if the High Court -
(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or
(b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or
(c) certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court :"
It is to be noted that there are two matters dealt with by this provision : (1) of the maintainability of an appeal in the Supreme Court and (2) the granting of a certificate. Clauses (a) and (b) grant to an accused, who has been convicted and sentenced to death by a High Court, an absolute right of appeal to the Supreme Court, while cl. (c) gives a right on the basis of a certificate of fitness for appeal granted by the High Court.

3. The question whether an appeal lies to the Supreme Court under Art.134 or not is within the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; a High Court has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide this, question. In fact a certificate granted by the High Court does not bind the Supreme Court and their Lordships can in a proper case hold that the certificate should not have been granted by the High Court.
All that the High Court has to do is to prima facie satisfy itself that the order sought to be appealed from is one contemplated by the first clause of Art.134 and then to see whether it also answers the requirements of sub-cl. (a), (b) or (c) of Art.134(1). If the order sought to be appealed from is not a judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding, the High Court cannot grant a certificate under cl. (c) of Art. 134(1) however erroneous the judgment may be.
A High Court does not come into the picture at all when an appeal is filed under cl. (a) or cl. (b) but it does when an appeal is to be filed under cl. (c) because an appeal cannot be filed unless the High Court grants a certificate of fitness fur appeal which the High Court can only do if it is satisfied not only with regard to the merits of the appeal but also with regard to the fact that it is one of the orders contemplated by Art.134(1).

4. In this view it would not be necessary for us, except to the limited extent which we have mentioned above, to decide whether an appeal lies under cl. (c) from an order of acquittal passed, or maintained on appeal, by a High Cou