BIBHUTI BHUSAN CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by :

(2.) THIS appeal by certificate granted by the High court at Patna raises a short question about the construction of Art. 9 in Sch. 1 of court-fees Act 7 of 1870 (hereinafter called the Act). A proceeding was instituted against the appellant, Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee, under S. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of the Magistrate of First Class at Bhagalpur; in this proceeding the learned magistrate directed the appellant to execute a bond of Rs. 5,000.00 with two sureties of the like amount each to keep the peace for a period of one year. The appellant challenged this order by his appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge at Bhagalpur. The appellate judge agreed with the decision of tne learned magistrate and the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant then took this matter before the High court at Patna by his Criminal Revision Application No. 924 of 1957. It appears that the certified copies of the orders passed by the two courts below in the present proceedings had been filed by the appellant along with his revisional application without any court-fees. The appellant was then called upon to pay court-fee of the value of Rs. 52,875.00 (sic) and Rs. 50.75nP. on the two orders respectively. The appellant questioned the validity of this order, and so his revisional application was placed before the High court for the decision of the question as to whether the two certified copies were chargeable with the payment of court-fees as directed by the stamp reporter. The High court took the view that the report made by the stamp reporter was consistent with the practice which the High court had followed in this matter and the said practice was fully justified by the provisions of Art. 9. In the result the contention raised by the appellant that no stamp need be affixed to the two orders was rejected and he was directed to affix the necessary stamps within two weeks from the date of the order. The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High court under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution that the appellant's case was fit for appeal to this court. it is with this certificate that the appellant has come to this court; and on his behalf it lias been urged by Mr. P. K. Chatterjee that the view taken by the Patna High court is inconsistent with the true construction of Art. 9. We have been told that this appeal is being fought as a test case in order to test the validity of the relevant practice prevailing in the Patna High court.

(3.) ARTICLE 6 of Sch. I deals with the payment of court-fees for a copy or translation of a judgment or order not being or having the force of a decree, whereas Art. 7 deals with the copy of a decree. It is obvious that the orders with which we are concerned in the present appeal do not fall under either Art. 6 or Art. 7. ARTICLE 9 reads thus : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_128_AIR(SC)_1960Html1.htm</FRM> It is clear that a copy of a statement or report or the like taken out of a criminal court is expressly provided for by the latter part of Art. 9; and so it would be impossible to accept the argument that proceedings in criminal courts are wholly outside the purview of the relevant articles of sch. 1 If a copy of a statement made in a criminal court is filed it must bear the court fees prescribed by Art. 9; this position is not disputed. It cannot also be disputed that' the proceeding in a criminal court is a judicial proceeding. Section 4, sub-s. (m) of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines a judicial proceeding as including any proceeding in the course of which evidence is, or may be, legally taken <PG>131</PG> on oath. Thus there can be no doubt that an order passed in a criminal proceeding is an order passed in a judicial proceeding, and it is common ground that orders like those in the present appeal are not otherwise provided for by the Act. It is not contended before us that the judgments delivered by the courts below in proceedings taken under S. 107 of the Code are not orders, or do not constitute a part of the judicial proceeding. So, if a copy of an order or judgment delivered in a criminal proceeding is intended to be filed before the High court it clearly attracts the provisions of Art. 9. The words used in Art. 9 are clear and unambiguous, and in our opinion, on a fair and reasonable construction, they lead only to one conclusion and that is that the copies of the criminal judgments or orders must bear the court fee stamp prescribed by Art, 9. That is the view taken by the High court consistently with the practice prevailing in the High court for several years. We are satisfied that the view of the High court and the practice prevailing there are wholly justified by the provisions of Art. 9. This question was raised before the Travancore-Cochin High court in James Paul Alexander v. James Arthur Edwards, ILR 1953) Trav-Co 69 : (AIR 1953 Trav-Co 212), where the same view has been taken about the construction of the corresponding article, Art. 10, of the court Fees Act.