A copy of an order or judgment delivered in a criminal proceeding is intended to be filed before the High Court it clearly attracts the provisions of Art. 9 of Sch. I of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

Headnote:
COURT FEES ACT - ART. 9 - COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDING OR ORDER - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - COURT FEES PAYABLE.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged an order directing him to execute a bond to keep the peace, which was upheld by the appellate court. He filed a revision application in the High Court without paying court fees on the certified copies of the orders passed by the two courts below. The High Court directed him to affix the necessary stamps.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the certified copies were chargeable with court fees under Art. 9 of Sch. I of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Issues: Whether the certified copies of the orders passed by the two courts below in the present proceedings were chargeable with the payment of court-fees as directed by the stamp reporter.
Ratio Decidendi: Art. 9 of Sch. I of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which provides for the payment of court fees for a copy of any revenue or judicial proceeding or order not otherwise provided for by the Act, is clear and unambiguous and leads to the conclusion that the copies of the criminal judgments or orders must bear the court fee-stamp prescribed by Art. 9.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

The case concerns the construction and interpretation of Article 9 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, 1870, regarding the payment of court fees on copies of judicial proceedings or orders in criminal cases (!) (!) .
The appellant challenged an order requiring him to pay court fees on certified copies of orders passed by lower courts in a criminal proceeding, which he argued should not be subject to such fees based on the policy of providing free copies to accused persons (!) (!) .
The High Court held that copies of criminal orders or judgments intended to be filed before it are subject to court fees under Article 9, consistent with the practice followed in the court and the provisions of the Act (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the provisions of the Court Fees Act are to be strictly construed according to their plain and unambiguous language, and that hypothetical considerations about the policy of criminal procedure do not influence the interpretation of the Act (!) (!) .
It was clarified that every document falling within the scope of the relevant provisions of the Act must bear the prescribed court fee, regardless of the policy considerations in criminal procedure, which are irrelevant to the construction of the fee statutes (!) .
The court noted that the words of Article 9 are clear and only admit one reasonable construction—that copies of criminal orders or judgments must bear the prescribed court fee-stamp—affirming the practice of the High Court (!) (!) .
The court acknowledged that the policy of providing free copies to accused persons exists but held that this policy is a matter of legislative policy and does not alter the statutory interpretation of the Court Fees Act (!) .
The court observed that, although the fee requirement may sometimes cause hardship, it remains within the legislative domain to consider amendments or special provisions, as has been done in some jurisdictions (!) .
Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that certified copies of orders in criminal proceedings are subject to court fees as prescribed by the relevant statutory provisions (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court at Patna raises a short question about the construction of Art. 9 in Sch. I of Court-fees Act VII of 1870 (hereinafter called the Act). A proceeding was instituted against the appellant, Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee, under S. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Magistrate of First Class at Bhagalpur; in this proceeding the learned magistrate directed the appellant to execute a bond of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to keep the peace for a period of one year. The appellant challenged this order by his appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge at Bhagalpur. The appellate judge agreed with the decision of the learned magistrate and the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant then took this matter before the High Court at Patna by his Criminal Revision Application No. 924 of 1957. It appears that the certified copies of the orders passed by the two Courts below in the present proceedings had, been filed by the appellant along with his revisional application without any court-fees. The appellant was then called upon to pay court-fee of the value of Rs. 52.875 (sic) & Rs. 50.75nP. on the two orders respectively. The appellant questioned the validity of this order, and so his revisional application was placed before the High Court for the decision of the question as to whether the two certified copies were chargeable with the payment of court-fees as directed by the stamp reporter. The High Court took the view that the report made by the stamp reporter was consistent with the practice which the High Court had followed in this matter and the said practice was fully justified by the provisions of Art. 9. In the result the contention raised by the appellant that no stamp need be affixed to the two orders was rejected and he was directed to affix the necessary stamps within two weeks from the date of the order. The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court under Art. 134 (1)(c) of the Constitution that the appellants case was fit for appeal to this Court. It is with this certificate that the appellant has come to this Court and on his behalf it has been urged by Mr. P. K. Chatterjee that the view taken by the Patna High Court is inconsistent with the true construction of Art. 9. We have been told that this appeal is being fought as a test case in order to test the validity of the relevant practice prevailing in the Patna High Court.

2. Mr. Chatterjee contends that in construing Art. 9 it would be relevant to bear in mind the policy which Legislature has deliberately adopted in enacting the material provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with the question of supplying to the accused persons requisite copies under the Code. S. 173(4) of the Code requires that before the commencement of the enquiry or trial the officer-in-charge of the police station shall furnish or cause to be furnished to the accused free of cost any copy of the report forwarded under sub-s. (1) and of the First Information Report recorded under S. 154 and all other documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely. S. 207-A, sub-section (3) requires that the magistrate shall satisfy himself when the accused appears or is brought before him that the requirements of S. 173(4) have been duly complied with. Under S. 210 sub-section (2), as soon as the charge is framed against the accused it shall be read and explained to him and a copy thereof shall, if he so requires, be given to him free of costs. S. 251-A sub-section (1) requires that if S. 173 (4) has not been complied with the magistrate shall require that the documents in question shall be furnished to the accused free of charge. Similarly S. 371 (1) provides that on an application of the accused a copy of the judgment shall in any case, otherthan case, be given free of cost; and the proviso to S. 5

Click Here to Read the rest of this document