STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. R B AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) If an accused person is convicted by the trial Court, but on appeal to the High Court is acquitted, can the State move the High Court under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution for a certificate that the case in question is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court, that is the short question which arises in this appeal by special leave.

(2.) The respondent R. B. Agarwal was committed to the sessions for trial by the Judicial Officer, Lucknow under Ss. 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge who tried his case, dropped the charge under S. 471, but convicted the respondent under S. 467, I. P. C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs 10,000 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

(3.) The respondent challenged the said order of conviction and sentence by prefering an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, The High Court allowed the respondent's appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial Court, and directed that he should be acquitted. The appellant, the State of Uttar Pradesh, then applies to the High Court for a certificate under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The High Court has rejected the said application on the ground "that in view of the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Shantiranjan Majundar vs. A. Brahmachari, Cri. Appeal No. 21 of 1960, dated 14-9-1964 (SC), Article 134 does not provide for an appeal to the Supreme Court from an order of acquittal by the High Court". It is this order refusing to entertain the appellant's application for certificate on the ground that it is incompetent under Article 134(1)(c), which is challenged before us by the appellant in the present appeal.