KULWANT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgement made by Shri M.K. Chawla, Additional Session Judge, Delhi on the 2nd of September, 1972 by which he affirmed the petitioner's conviction under section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act and declined to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial- Court. I have gone through the record and I find that there was no competent appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who could have dismissed the appeal on the ground that so competent appeal has been preferred.

(2.) The petitioner was invicted by Shri P.P. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi in terms of his judgment made on the 15th of May, 1972. The "allegation against the pettioner was that on the 9th of January, 1968 a raiding party formed by Shri A.L. Chadha, Inspector, Crime Branch, Delhi Police had found the petitioner working a still in his premises i.e. ihuggi No. B/641 J.J. Colony, New Delhi. After discussing the evidence produced by ths prosecution the trial Court came to the conclusion that the guilt has been brought home to the accused and the petitioner was convicted under sections 61(1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. A fins of Rs. 200.00 was imposed in default of payment wher of he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 days. Agrrieved by his conviction and the sentence imposed in consequence thereof the petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Court's record which its index shows that the appeal was filed on the 17th of May, 1972 and the memorandum presented consisted of the grounds of appeal, the bail application and the power of attorney executed in favour of the counsel. In the index the first four pages are those pertaining to it and the grounds of appeal start and finish on page 5. Page 6 is the reverse? blank side of page No. 5 Page No. 7 is the bail application. On page No. 9 appears the first order passed by the Appellate Court wherein it was said that the appeal was being admitted subject to the filling of the certified copy of the impugned order.

(3.) It seems that it was represented to the learned Additional Sessions Judge that a certified copy of the impugned order will be filed although no copy attested or unattested had been filed with the memorandum of appeal. I am of the view that the Court below should have declined to deal with the appeal in the absence of the certified copy of the impugned order. The various orders passed by the Court below appear on page 10 as well. Pages 11 to 14 contain the judgment and on page 15 appears the power of attorney in favour of the appellant's counsel. On page 17 is the process issued to the Public Prosecutor, Delhi. As observed earlier the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have dealt with an incompetent appeal which should have been dismissed on that score. Section 404 in the Criminal Procedure Code, is that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force.