SHANTI PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shanti Parkash was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge Dharamsala for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-. He came in appeal before this Court but could not succeed. Both the conviction and sentence have been maintained. He has now filed an application under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution for a certificate that the case is fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. He has also submitted an application for suspension of sentence.

(2.) The word "certifies" in Sub-rule (1)(c) as used in Article 134 is a strong word which requires the High Court to look closely in the case to see if any special consideration arises for appeal to the Supreme Court. If a case does not involve any question of law, then however difficult the question of fact may be that would not justify the grant of a certificate. Obviously the power has to be exercised by the High Court after considering several factors. What difficult questions of law and principle are involved in the case which should further require the consideration of the Supreme Court There are two affirmative judgments of the learned Sessions Judge and of this Court and unless special and exceptional circumstances are shown to exist in consequence of which substantial and grave injustice have been done then only a review can be sought from the Supreme Court. On a question of fact there can possibly be no review and a certificate will not be granted. See Om Parkash Appellant v. The State of Haryana and Anr., 1970 AIR(SC) 654. In other words a certificate must disclose what a question of law is involved.

(3.) The learned Counsel submits on behalf of the accused that the question involved related to the framing of the charge under Section 409 and the particulars to be supplied within frame-work of the charge. For this the learned Counsel of the State sought the assistance of Section 222(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in my opinion no decision by the Supreme Court is at all needed on that controversy. The other points alleged related to the duties assigned to the accused and the appointment of a treasurer who was to handle the cash, though in fact it was the accused who handled the cash and committed criminal breach of trust for the sum of Rs. 2,030.50. It is also claimed by the learned Counsel that the accused was Secretary of a Co-operative Society and an arbitration was provided in Co-operative Societies Act meaning thereby that the prosecution should not have commenced under Section 409. Then it is stated that timely audit was not done and that there were discrepancies in the First Information Report and the case developed by the witnesses. According to the learned Counsel the evidence of the prosecution could not be relied upon. All these are questions of facts and do not justify the grant of a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court under Clause (1)(c) of Article 134.