BIBHUTI BHUSAN CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against an order dated 1-10-56 whereby in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Magistrate of the first class at Bhagalpur ordered the petitioner to execute a bond of Rs. 5,000/-with two sureties of the like amount each to keep the peace for a period of one year. The order of the learned Magistrate was upheld in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge of Bhagalpur. The petitioner has now come up in revision. The question which at present arises for determination is whether the certified copies of the orders of the two Courts below filed by the petitioner in this Court along with his revision petition are chargeable with Court fees according to the Court-fers Act, and if so, what is the proper value of the stamps to be affixed on the two documents. The Stamp Reporter has reported that tinder Article 9 of Schedule I of the Court-fees Act Orders of the Original Court and the appellate Court are chargeable with a court-fee of the value of Rs. 52.75 and Rs. 50.75 respectively.

(2.) Mr. B.C. Ghosh, appearing for the petitioner, contends that Article 9. Schedule I of the Courts fees Act has no application to this case. According to him there is no proper provision in Schedule I of the Court-fees Act for charging court-fees on judgments and orders of a criminal Court. In support of his contention learned counsel has mainly urged two points. It is submitted, in the first place, that under Section 371 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an accused in a warrant case is entitled to a copy of the judgment or a translation thereof free of cost. It is argued that it could never have been the intention of the framers of the Court-fees Act to direct levy of court-fee on a document which the accused was by virtue of another enactment entitled to get without payment of any cost. The other point pressed is that the Madras Legislature has enacted a new article, being Article 6A under Madras Act V of 1922, providing that a copy or translation of a judgment or order of ft criminal Court was to be stamped with a court-fee stamp of annas 8 only. Learned Counsel con-tends that the introduction of the new Article 6A by the Madras Legislature supports the view that Schedule I as it originally stood before the aforesaid amendment by the Madras Legislature, contained no provision for assessment of Court-fee stamps on judgments and orders of criminal Courts.

(3.) The argument based upon Section 371 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no force. The order against which the present revision is directed was passed in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An application to take proceedings under that section is not an accusation of an offence nor an order passed under Section 118 a conviction of an offence. The Legislature in fact studiously avoided the use of the word "accused" in connection with a proceeding under Section 107, although sometimes a person proceeded against under this section is loosely described by Subordinate Magistrate as an ac-cused. It is a misnomer to use that expression in security proceedings. Section 371 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for giving copies of judgments to accused persons does not, therefore, apply to this case and the petitioner was by no means entitled to a copy of the learned Magistrate's order in this case free of cost. Mr. B.C. Ghosh has not disputed this, taut he urges that Article 9 does not apply to criminal proceedings at all.