SHAMBHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision raises questions of considerable importance in the day to day working of Sessions Courts in Uttar Pradesh on the Criminal appellate side. (I confine my remarks to Sessions Courts, since District Magistrates in Uttar Pradesh can no longer hear appeals from judgments and orders of Magistrates of the Second and Third classes, and all such appeals now lie to the Court of Session.).

(2.) The facts are these. Certain persons, all residents of the Allahabad district, were tried before a Magistrate at Allahabad for offences under Sections 325 and 323 I. P. C., and on 28-12-1951 the learned Magistrate pronounced judgment finding them guilty and sentencing them to imprisonment and fine. In view of the sentence of imprisonment they were taken into custody. Against their conviction and sentences they on 5-1-1952 filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge of Allahabad. The petition of appeal was not accompanied by a copy of the Magistrate's judgment, but along with it was filed a copy of the Magistrate's order-sheet or fard-ahkam of 28-12-1951. There was also made an application for bail and stay of realisation of fine for the pendency of the appeal. The learned Sessions Judge admitted the appeal, but evidently realising that the appeal was incompetent directed a copy of the Magistrate's judgment to be filed by 15-2-1952. He also passed order granting bail to the convicted persons and staying the realisation of their fine, though it may be mentioned that this bail and stay order was not supported by any reasons in writing. On the strength of the bail order the applicants were enlarged on bail. Nevertheless, they failed to file a copy of the Magistrate's judgment by the appointed date. Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge extended the time f Jr filing it, first to the 7th March, next to the 22nd March and lastly to the 10th April. Yet the required copy was not filed. Thereupon on 10-4-1952 the learned Judge passed this order:

(3.) This revision on behalf of the convicted persons seeks the setting aside of the Sessions Judge's order dismissing their appeal on the ground that that order was contrary to law. Section 419, Criminal P. C. prescribes that every petition of appeal "shall (unless the Court to which it is presented otherwise directs) be accompanied by a copy of the judgment or order appealed against." Relying on this clause the learned counsel for the applicants contends that along with their petition of appeal to the Sessions Judge his clients were entitled to file a copy either of the judgment or the order of the trial Court, and since that Court's order was contained in the order-sheet or fard-ahkam, the filing of a copy of the order-sheet was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 419, and consequently the learned Sessions Judge was in error both in demanding a copy of the Magistrate's judgment and in dismissing the appeal for want of it.