STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. CHRISTOPHER TOBIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EIGHT persons were charged under Sections 147, 323, 325, and 326 read with Section 149, penal Code. They were tried by Shri Balram Sinha, Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge of gorakhpur, in respect of the aforesaid offences. The trial court acquitted all of them by its order dated 24-7-1953.

(2.) ON 25-1-1954 the Government filed an appeal in this Court against the said order of acquittal. Along with the memorandum of appeal, the Government did not file a certified copy of the judgment of the trial court. A typed copy of the judgment was, however, annexed to the memorandum of appeal. On the same day the office made a report that the copy of the judgment filed along with the petition of appeal was not a certified one. A certified copy of the judgment was, however, filed by the appellant on 25-2-1954, after the period of limitation for filing the government appeal had already expired. This copy was accepted by the Court on 25-2-1954. (Note: This order of the Court appears to have been erroneously dated as 25-1-1954 ). The appellant was allowed three days' time for making an application under Section 5, Limitation Act for condoning the delay in furnishing the copy and filing the appeal. On 27-2-1954, the applicant filed an application under Section 5, Limitation Act praying that the delay in tiling the certified copy of the judgment of the trial Court and in filing the appeal be condoned. This application was ordered to be put up' before a Division Bench for necessary orders. It was accordingly placed before us for orders. At the time of the hearing of the application, the learned counsel for the appellant, however, took up the position that the typed copy of the judgment of the trial court filed along with the memorandum of appeal constituted a sufficient compliance with the requirements of law. He argued that Section 419, Criminal P. C. did not require that the copy of the judgment filed along with the memorandum of appeal should be a certified one. He, accordingly, contended that the appeal was filed within limitation. The matter has been argued ex parte before us by the counsel for the State, as no notice has so far been issued to the opposite party.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the State, I find myself unable to agree with this plea. This petition of appeal was filed under Section 419, Criminal P. C. which provides as follows: