GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE Vs. GULAM MOHAMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal is raised by the learned Counsel for the accused. The appeal is filed under Section 417, Criminal P.C. against an order of acquittal by the Advocate-General on behalf of Government in accordance with the practice all along which was not questioned until very recently. It may be mentioned that there is no Public Prosecutor appointed by the Government to attend to criminal cases in appeal, revision or of reference in this Court and the Government is being represented by the Advocate-General in all such cases. The objection is based on the mention of Public Prosecutor and not Advocate-General in the Section as the person who may be instructed by the Government to file the appeal and on the distinction made in the Code between the two, not merely in the definition under Section 4 but also in other sections in which either is specifically referred 10. Since the provisions relating to appeal do not refer to Advocate-General at all, he would not be entitled to appear in or conduct any appeal, be it against a conviction or acquittal, if the contention is correct. We are not impressed with the argument but it is not necessary for the purpose of this case to depend upon the provisions of the Code to decide the question, in view of the appeal being filed after the Constitution of India came into force and Article 165 states that the Advocate-General has to perform such duties as are assigned to him. It is not and cannot be disputed that if the duties assigned to him, enable his filing the appeal the objections must fail.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Notification in the Mysore Gazette dated 13.4.1950 the Advocate General in Mysore will represent Government in all appeals and revision cases before the High Court...and generally appear before the High Court in all criminal cases in which Government have to be represented in that Court. The construction sought to be placed by accused's counsel that the word 'Appeals' has reference only to appeals against convictions and "Represent" entitles the Advocate-General only to argue does not appear to be sound. The words from their plain meaning and the context must be taken to be wide and comprehensive enough to authorise him to perform all acts, necessary in or for a case, without restriction. There can be no reason to require the appeal to be filed - a purely mechanical act by one and to be argued by another. A reading of the notification in such a manner is not warranted by the rules of interpretation, or the meaning of the words. The objection is, therefore, overruled as being untenable.