Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the Allahabad High Court's dismissal of its appeal against acquittal as time-barred. The respondents had been acquitted by the temporary Civil Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur on July 24, 1953 for offences under Sections 147, 302, 325, 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The State, aggrieved, intended to appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Under Article 157 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, the appeal against acquittal had to be filed within six months, expiring on January 24, 1954. Because that day was a Sunday, the Deputy Government Advocate filed the petition of appeal on January 25, 1954, but accompanied it with only a plain copy of the trial court's judgment, not a certified copy. The High Court office noted that the copy did not appear certified. An application for a certified copy was made on February 12, 1954, the certified copy was received on February 23, 1954, and presented to the High Court on February 25, 1954. A Single Judge granted three days to apply under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay; an application was made but the Division Bench dismissed it. The Division Bench then differed on whether a plain copy satisfied Section 419 CrPC; upon reference, a third Judge opined that the word 'copy' in Section 419 means certified copy. Consequently, the Division Bench held the appeal time-barred and dismissed it, granting a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. The sole legal issue was whether Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 required a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed against, or whether a plain copy sufficed. The State argued that the ordinary dictionary meaning of 'copy' is a reproduction or transcription of an original, and there being no ambiguity, the court should apply that grammatical meaning; hence a plain copy was sufficient. The Court observed that 'copy' could mean either a plain or a certified copy, creating a question of construction. It applied the principle that statutory words are understood in the sense that harmonises with the subject and object of the enactment. The Court examined related provisions: Section 371 CrPC entitles accused persons to free copies of judgment or findings, and copies supplied by public officers must be certified under Sections 74 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 548 CrPC similarly contemplates certified copies for persons affected by a judgment. Therefore, when Section 419 requires a copy, it refers to the certified copy obtained from court. The Court also noted that Section 12 of the Limitation Act allows deduction of time taken to obtain the copy, indicating that a certified copy is contemplated. The Supreme Court approved Ram Lal v. Ghanasham Das and distinguished Firm Chota Lal-Amba Parshad v. Firm Basdeo Mal-Hira Lal. It concluded that the word 'copy' in Section 419 means certified copy. Since the State filed only a plain copy within time and the certified copy after the limitation period, and since the Section 5 application was dismissed, the appeal was time-barred. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Section 419 CrPC - Meaning of 'Copy' - The word 'copy' in Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 means a certified copy, not a plain copy - Held that a petition of appeal filed under Section 419 must be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed against, and filing a plain copy is insufficient compliance with that section. B) Limitation - Appeal Against Acquittal - Articles 154, 155, 157 Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - Time-Barred Appeal - Where the State filed an appeal under Section 417 CrPC with a plain copy of the judgment and a certified copy was filed after the period of limitation expired, and the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 was dismissed, the appeal was time-barred - Held that the High Court correctly dismissed the appeal as time-barred. C) Statutory Interpretation - Harmonious Construction - Sections 366, 367, 369, 371, 372, 548 CrPC and Sections 74, 76 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Words of a statute are to be understood in the sense that best harmonises with the subject matter and object of the enactment - Certified copies are official copies supplied by public officers, and the scheme of the Code contemplates filing of certified copies with appeal petitions - Held that interpreting 'copy' as certified copy aligns with the statutory framework.
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 requires a petition of appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed against, or whether a plain copy is sufficient compliance.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's order. It held that the word 'copy' in Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 means a certified copy; therefore the petition of appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed against. Since the State filed only a plain copy within limitation and the certified copy on February 25, 1954 after limitation expired, and the Section 5 application was dismissed, the appeal was time-barred.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- The word 'copy' in Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1898 means a certified copy
- a petition of appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed against
- filing a plain copy is not sufficient compliance
- an appeal filed with a plain copy and supplemented by a certified copy after expiry of limitation is time-barred
- statutory words must be interpreted harmoniously with subject and object.
