STATE OF U P Vs. HORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State has been preferred against a judgment and order dated 14th November 1968, of a learned Magistrate First Class discharging the respondent Hori Lai for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Since the order was passed after a charge had been framed, it amounted to an acquittal and hence the appeal. The appeal was presented before the Registrar presumably after Court hours on the 20th February 1969, which was the last day of limitation. When the appeal came up for hearing before Jag Mohan Lal Sinha J. a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the appeal not having been presented before the Court, its presentation was improper and was consequently not maintainable. In support of this objection, reliance was placed on a decision of our brother S. Malik dismissing Government Appeal No. 2025 of 1968 State of U. P. v. Amrik Singh connected with Government Appeals Nos. 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2033 of 1968. The appeals dismissed by S. Malik. J. had been presented before the Registrar at his residence at 7. 10 P. M. after Court hours on the 11th September. 1968. which was riot the last day of limitation. It was also not a day on which the Court was not sitting. In these circumstances, a preliminary objection was raised that the presentation of the appeals was illegal and they were consequently liable to be dismissed. S. Malik. J. held that the appeals not having been presented in accordance with Rule 1 of Chapter XVIII part III of the Rules of Court, they were liable to be dismissed as barred by time. Brother Jag Mohan Lal Sinha was not inclined to accept the contention that Rule 1 of Chapter XVIII Part III of the Rules of Court was exhaustive on the subject of presentation of criminal appeals. Being of the view that the decision on the preliminary objection raised was likely to affect a large number of appeals pending in this Court and that the point involved is one of considerable importance, he referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative decision the following questions: 1. Whether in view of the provisions contained in Rule 38 of Chapter VIII and Rule 11 of Chapter XI, a criminal appeal can be validly presented before the Registrar during court hours on any working day on which the judges do not sit?

(2.) WHETHER in view of the aforesaid provisions a criminal appeal can be validly presented before the Registrar on the last date of limitation beyond court hours if the appellant or his counsel was unable to present it in Court?" We shall now proceed to consider the questions posed. 2. In exercise of the powers conferred on it by Article 225 of the Constitution, this Court has framed Rules which according to Rule 2 thereof may be cited as "rules of Court 1952" hereinafter referred to as the "rules. " According to Rule 2 the Rules shall apply to proceedings and matters in the High Court commenced on or subsequent to the fifteenth September, 1952 and so far as may be also to proceedings and matters pending on that date Since the appeal before us was preferred after the 15th September 1952. It is governed by the Rules.

(3.) THE "rules" consist of VIII Parts and XLI Chapters in all. Part 1 of the "rules" contains provisions of general application as would appear from the title given to it. It consists of VIII Chapters. Part II consists of Chapters IX to XVI and is entitled "civil Jurisdiction. " The Rules contained in this part, as the title thereof indicates, are applicable specifically to matters of a civil nature. Part III bears the general heading "criminal Jurisdiction" and consists of Chapters XVII to XX, An examination of the Rules contained in this part reveals that they are applicable exclusively to matters of a criminal nature Rule 1 of Chapter XVIII Part III is in the following terms: Every petition of appeal or application for revision of other application in a criminal matter shall be presented in Court except where it may under these Rules or by order of the Court or the Chief Justice be filed before the Registrar or any other officer of the Court.