Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered whether the State could move the High Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court after the High Court had acquitted an accused person on appeal from a trial court conviction. The case arose from the conviction of the respondent under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code by an Assistant Sessions Judge, who had dropped the charge under Section 471 and sentenced the respondent to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 with default rigorous imprisonment for two years. On appeal by the respondent, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted him. The State of Uttar Pradesh then applied to the High Court for a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The High Court rejected the application as incompetent, relying on the Supreme Court decision in S. Majumdar v. A. Brahmachari and Others and the earlier decision in State Government, Madhya Pradesh v. Ramakrishna Ganpatrao Limsey and Others, which had observed that Article 134 did not provide for an appeal from an acquittal order and that there was no constitutional provision corresponding to Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. The only issue before the Supreme Court was whether the State could make such an application for a certificate, not whether the certificate should be granted on merits. The Court held that the relevant words in Article 134(1)(c) are wide in their sweep and authorise an application for a certificate from any judgment, final order, or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court. An order of acquittal passed by the High Court in an appeal preferred by a convicted accused is clearly a judgment or final order in a criminal proceeding of the High Court. Therefore, if an accused is convicted by the trial court and on appeal the High Court sets aside the conviction, the State is entitled to apply for a certificate under Article 134(1)(c). The Court disapproved the contrary observations in Limsey and Shantiranjan Majumdar cases, holding that the absence of a provision corresponding to Section 417 CrPC is of no significance because the sweeping language of Article 134(1)(c) covers appellate orders of acquittal. The application cannot be rejected in limine as incompetent; it must be entertained and considered on merits. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's order refusing to grant the certificate was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law. The Court also directed that the State's separate special leave petition against the High Court's appellate decision on merits should stand over until the High Court decides the certificate application, in view of Order 21 Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules.
Headnote
A) Constitution of India - Appeals in Criminal Matters - Article 134(1)(c) - Certificate of Fitness Against High Court's Appellate Order of Acquittal - Constitution of India, Article 134(1)(c) - The State sought a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court after the High Court acquitted the accused on appeal from a trial court conviction; the High Court rejected the application as incompetent relying on S. Majumdar v. A. Brahmachari and State Government M.P. v. Ramakrishna Ganpatrao Limsey. Held that the wide words 'any judgment, final order, or sentence' include an appellate order of acquittal, and the State's application is maintainable and cannot be rejected in limine (Paras not mentioned). B) Interpretation of Statutes - Wide Words in Constitutional Provision - No Separate Provision Needed Corresponding to Section 417 CrPC - Constitution of India, Article 134(1)(c); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 417 - The Court disapproved observations in Limsey and Shantiranjan Majumdar cases that no constitutional provision corresponds to Section 417 CrPC, holding that the sweep of Article 134(1)(c) is wide enough to cover acquittals on appeal, and the absence of a separate provision is irrelevant (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State can move the High Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court in a case where an accused convicted by the trial court was acquitted by the High Court on appeal.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; the order of the High Court refusing to grant a certificate on the ground that the application was incompetent was set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law. The separate special leave petition filed by the State against the High Court's appellate decision on merits was directed to stand over until the High Court finally decided the certificate application, in view of Order 21 Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Article 134(1)(c) of Constitution of India covers appellate orders of acquittal passed by High Court
- State entitled to apply for certificate of fitness against such acquittal
- no separate provision corresponding to Section 417 Code of Criminal Procedure required
- application cannot be rejected in limine as incompetent
