1967 (12) TMI 69 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court's order dismissing the revision application was a final order.
2. Whether the High Court was competent to grant a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution.
3. Whether the appeal to the Supreme Court is maintainable.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Finality of the High Court's Order:

The primary issue was whether the High Court's order dismissing the revision application was a final order. The appellant argued that the High Court's order was final, while the respondent contended it was not, as the controversy regarding the appellant's alleged offense was still ongoing.

The court examined various tests and precedents to determine the finality of an order. Generally, an order is considered final if it determines the principal matter in question. The court cited several cases, such as *Salaman v. Warner* and *Bozson v. Altrincham Urban Council*, to illustrate different tests for finality. The court concluded that the High Court's order was final concerning the controversy about whether the complaint was justified, even though the main issue of the appellant's guilt remained unresolved.

2. Competence of the High Court to Grant a Certificate:

The second issue was whether the High Court was competent to grant a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The court held that the High Court could only grant such a certificate if the case involved a substantial question of law or principle, not merely a question of fact. The court referenced *Haripada Dey v. The State of West Bengal* and *Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh* to emphasize that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant a certificate on a mere question of fact. Since the revision application involved a factual question-whether the Magistrate was justified in filing the complaint-the High Court was not competent to grant the certificate.

3. Maintainability of the Appeal:

Given the conclusions on the first two issues, the court addressed the maintainability of the appeal. Since the High Court's order was not final in the context of Article 134(1)(c) and the High Court was not competent to grant the certificate, the appeal to the Supreme Court was not maintainable. The court dismissed the appeal on these grounds.

Separate Judgment by Bachawat, J.:

Bachawat, J. concurred with the main judgment but provided additional reasoning. He emphasized that the order directing the filing of a complaint was interlocutory because it was a preliminary step in the prosecution. He cited *Ramchand Manjilal v. Goverdhandas Vishindas Ratanchand* and *s. Kuppuswami Rao v. The King* to support his view that the order did not finally decide the rights of the parties. Thus, the High Court was not competent to grant a certificate under Article 134(1)(c), and the appeal was not maintainable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's order dismissing the revision application was a final order concerning the justification of the complaint but not final in the context of Article 134(1)(c). The High Court was not competent to grant a certificate on a question of fact, making the appeal to the Supreme Court not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed.