GHUNCHU NARAYANA Vs. KARRAPATI KESAPPA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court in Cr. R.C. No. 566 of 1950 under Article 134 (1) (c), Constitution of India, which, is in the following terms :

(2.) OUR judgment in Chunchu Narayana v. K. Kesappa, Cr. R. C. No. 566 of 1950 : (AIR 1951 Mad 500 : 1952 Cr LJ 126), is based on a construction of Section 145(4), Criminal Procedure Code, on which there had been sharp divergence of judicial opinion. In this Court three learned Judges, Wallace, Devadoss and Lakshmana Rao, JJ., have taken one view, whereas two others, namely, Jackson and Happell, JJ., have taken a contrary view. The view taken by the latter Judges has been shared by the Lucknow and Allahabad High Courts as well. In this state of conflicting authority we had to choose between two divergent opinions and we preferred to accept the principles of the decisions of Wallace, Devadoss and Lakshmana Rao, JJ., on the construction of this section. The question is, whether the proposition of law is of such an importance that leave should be granted? It has to be premised that the order made by a criminal Court under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code is subject to the result of a civil suit and, therefore, criminal Court's decision is only of a temporary nature.

(3.) IN interpreting Section 109 (c), Civil P. C. in 'Bamanathan Chetti v. Audmatha Aiyangar,' AIR 1931 Mad 642 : (132 IC 290), Venkatasubba Rao and Madhavan Nair, JJ., have laid down that the existence of a question of law or some difficulty is not a sufficient ground for certifying the case to be a fit one for appeal to the Privy Council, unless it is of general and public importance. The learned Judge, Madhavan Nair, J., discussed a large body of case law and came to that conclusion. Is there a question of law of some difficulty and sufficient importance in this case? Probably it might be stated that the question we have to decide is of some importance because of the construction of Section 145 (4), Criminal Procedure Code; but we do not feel that it is a matter of any great difficulty.