MOHANLAL MAGANLAL THAKKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a practising advocate, was engaged by Rama Shamal and Raiji Shamal two of the accused in Criminal Case No. 26 of 1963 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Baroda in respect of charges under Secs. 302, 436, 334 read with sec. 149 of the Penal Code. On January 12, 1963, the appellant presented a bail application on behalf of the said two accused. The Magistrate granted bail on each of the two accused executing a personal bond of Rs. 1500 with surety for the like amount. On January 24, 1963, bail bonds were furnished by a person calling himself Udesing Abhesing. The appellant identified that person as Udesing Abhesing and as personally known to him. On the stength of his identification the Magistrate accepted the bonds and released the two accused on bail. Thereafter, one of them absented himself from the Court on three occasions and the Magistrate issued a notice on the said surety.

(2.) Mr. Sanghi for the respondent raised the preliminary contention that the High Court's order dismissing the revision was not a final order as it did not determine the complaint filed by the Magistrate nor did it decide the controversy between the parties therein, viz., the State of Gujarat and the appellant, whether the appellant had committed the said offence. That controversy being still a live one, the order, according to him, was not final, the certificate granted by the High Court was incompetent and consquently the appeal is not maintainable.

(3.) The question as to whether a judgment or an order is final or not has been the subject matter of a number of decisions; yet no single general test for finality has so far been laid down. The reason probably is that a judgment or order may be final for one purpose and interlocutory for another or final as to part and interlocutory as to part. The meaning of the two words "final" and "interlocutory" has, therefore, to be considered separately in relation to the particular purposec for which it is required. However, generally speaking, a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed final. It may be final although it directs enquires or is made on an interlocutory application or reserves liberty to apply. (1) In some of the English decisions where this question arose, one or the other of the following four tests was applied.