1963 (11) TMI 104 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of a joint appeal by the State against the acquittals of multiple respondents.
2. Binding nature of High Court judgments on other High Court Judges.
3. Interpretation and application of Sections 417, 419, 423, and 431 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Relevance of judgments under the Evidence Act.
5. Judicial oath and independence.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of a Joint Appeal by the State Against the Acquittals of Multiple Respondents:
The appeal was filed by the State of Gujarat against the acquittals of three respondents by the City Magistrate. The court examined whether a single appeal could be maintained against the acquittals of multiple persons. It was held that when multiple persons are acquitted, there are as many orders of acquittal as there are accused persons. Section 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition, implying that there cannot be a joint petition for multiple appeals. The court emphasized that the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate joint appeals and that the legislature did not provide for such a provision. Therefore, the appeal was treated as three separate appeals against three orders of acquittal, and it was concluded that a single appeal against multiple acquittals is not maintainable.

2. Binding Nature of High Court Judgments on Other High Court Judges:
The judgment discussed whether decisions of any Bench of the Gujarat High Court are binding on other Judges of the High Court. It was opined that High Court Judges must give decisions according to law and their own judgment, as per the oath taken under Article 219 of the Constitution of India. The court stated that High Court Judges are not bound to follow the interpretation of the law by other High Court Benches if it is inconsistent with their own interpretation and judgment. The principle of stare decisis, common in English common law, was not considered applicable in the same way within the Indian legal framework. Therefore, judgments of other High Court Judges are not binding but are entitled to respect and consideration.

3. Interpretation and Application of Sections 417, 419, 423, and 431 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
Section 417 allows the State Government to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against an order of acquittal. Section 419 requires that every appeal be in the form of a petition, which the court interpreted as necessitating separate petitions for each order of acquittal. Section 423 outlines the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal, including reversing the order and directing a retrial. The court held that a single appeal against multiple acquittals would lead to procedural difficulties, such as invalid orders in case of partial abatement if one of the respondents dies. The court concluded that the Criminal Procedure Code does not permit joint appeals, and each acquittal must be appealed separately.

4. Relevance of Judgments Under the Evidence Act:
The judgment explored the relevance of judgments under Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act, which deal with the admissibility of judgments as evidence. Section 43 specifies that judgments, orders, or decrees not mentioned in Sections 40, 41, and 42 are irrelevant unless the existence of such judgment, order, or decree is a fact in issue or is relevant under some other provision of the Act. The court emphasized that a High Court Judge's decision should not be based on the judgment of another Judge, as it would contravene Sections 165 and 43 of the Evidence Act. The court reiterated that judgments of other High Court Judges are not binding and should not form the basis of another judgment.

5. Judicial Oath and Independence:
The judgment underscored the importance of judicial independence and the oath taken by High Court Judges under Article 219 of the Constitution, which requires them to give decisions according to their own judgment and the laws of India. The court stated that following the judgment of another High Court Judge against one's own judgment would contravene the judicial oath and the principle of judicial independence. The court highlighted that the judiciary must apply and uphold the laws of India, and decisions should be based on the Judge's own interpretation and understanding of the law.

Conclusion:
The appeal by the State against the acquittals of multiple respondents was dismissed as not maintainable. The court held that separate appeals are required for each order of acquittal, and a joint appeal is not permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code. The judgment also clarified that High Court Judges are not bound by the decisions of other High Court Judges, emphasizing the importance of judicial independence and adherence to the laws of India.