1958 (2) TMI 44 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the requirement of a certified copy of the judgment.
2. Interpretation of the term "copy" in Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Application of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the certified copy.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the requirement of a certified copy of the judgment:
The respondents were acquitted by the temporary Civil Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, on July 24, 1953. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed an appeal against this acquittal on January 25, 1954, accompanied by a plain copy of the judgment. The High Court office noted that the copy was not certified. Subsequently, a certified copy was obtained and filed on February 25, 1954. The High Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding that the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a "copy" within the meaning of Section 419, which they interpreted to mean a certified copy. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that Section 419 requires a certified copy of the judgment to be filed with the petition of appeal.

2. Interpretation of the term "copy" in Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Supreme Court analyzed whether the term "copy" in Section 419 refers to a plain copy or a certified copy. The Court noted that the ordinary dictionary meaning of "copy" is a reproduction or transcription of an original writing. However, the Court emphasized that the context and purpose of the statute must be considered. The Court referred to Section 366, 367, 369, 371, 372, and 548 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 74 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court concluded that the term "copy" in Section 419 must be interpreted as a certified copy. This interpretation ensures the authenticity and correctness of the judgment, which is crucial for the appellate court to make judicial decisions, including interlocutory orders.

3. Application of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the certified copy:
The appellant argued that there was sufficient cause for not filing the certified copy along with the petition of appeal and sought condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The High Court dismissed this application, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision. The Court noted that the period of limitation for appealing from the order of acquittal expired on January 24, 1954, and the certified copy was filed only on February 25, 1954. The Court held that the application for extension of the period of limitation was rightly dismissed, making the appeal time-barred.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment as required by Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court emphasized that the term "copy" in this context means a certified copy, ensuring the authenticity and correctness of the judgment for the appellate court to make judicial decisions. The application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was also rightly dismissed, making the appeal time-barred.