This special appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against a Single Judge's order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was held not maintainable. The Court ruled that special appeals are barred against judgments passed in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.
Special appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 946 of 2019 Appellant :- Ram Nayan Dwivedi Respondent :- Naval Dey Bharti And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Satish Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Upendra Kumar Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
"64. From the above discussions and looking into the provisions of U.P. Act No. 14 of 1962 as amended by Amendment Act of 1981 and Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, 1952, special
2
appeal is excluded from a judgment of one Judge of this Court in following categories :-
(i) Judgment of one Judge passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court.
(iii) Judgment of one Judge made in the exercise of its power of Superintendence.
(iv) Judgment of one Judge made in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.
(v) Judgment of order of one Judge made in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award of a Tribunal, Court or Statutory Arbitrator made or purported to be more in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in State List or Concurrent List.
(vi) Judgment or order of one Judge made in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award by the Court or any officer or authority made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act."
3
reads as under :
"Having given our anxious consideration to the various plea raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that from the perusal of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules a special appeal shall lie before this Court from the judgment passed by one Judge of the Court. However, such special appeal will not lie in the following circumstances:
1. The judgment passed by one Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court;
2. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction;
3. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of the power of Superintendence of the High Court;
4. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction;
5. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award by
(i) the tribunal,
(iii) statutory arbitrator
made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act. with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India;
6. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award of
(i) the Government or
(iii) authority,
made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional
4
jurisdiction under any such Act, i.e. under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Order Date :- 9.9.2019
Manish Tripathi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a special appeal lies against a judgment of a Single Judge passed in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules permits a special appeal against an order made in exercise of Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution regarding criminal jurisdiction.
Whether the present special appeal is maintainable given the single Judge exercised criminal jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vajara Yojna Seed Farm and Ors. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II and Ors.Relied on¶9
Vajara Yojna Seed Farm and Ors Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II and Ors. (2003) 1 UPLBEC 496
Sheet Gupta vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶19
Sheet Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others AIR 2010 All. 46 · Who else cites this
Abhishek Sahu vs. Civil Judge (S.D.), Lucknow and Ors.Followed¶39
Abhishek Sahu vs. Civil Judge (S.D.), Lucknow and Ors. 2014(11) ADJ 407
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Ram Nayan Dwivedi
Naval Dey Bharti
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
