Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee versus the State of Bihar

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

935

appellant of any of his 'rights under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In conclusion, we wish to add that we have considered in the present case the question if the High Court committed any illegality in passing the two orders, one on June 14, 1956, and the other on August 17, 1956. We have held that the High Court committed no illegality. Nothing said in this judgment should be taken as commending or encouraging a departure from the usual practice which, we understand, is that when an appeal is pending before an inferior court, the High Court exercises, if necessary, its powers of revision after the appeal has been disposed of. There may, however, be exceptional cases where the ends of justice require that the appeal itself be heard by the High Court and in such a case it is open to the High Court to exercise its powers of revision under s. 439, Criminal Procedure Code, of enhancing the sentence after having heard and dismissed the appeal. The present case was an exceptional case of that nature and we do not think that the procedure adopted by the High Court was in any way illegal or prejudicial to the appellant. We find no good grounds for interference by this Court.

¶5

I959

¶6

Romesh Chandra Arora v. The State

¶7

S. K. Das J.

¶8

Accordingly, we hold that the appeal is devoid of merit and direct that it be dismissed.

¶9

Appeal dismissed.

¶10

BIBHUTI BHUSAN CHATTERJEE

v.

THE STATE OF BIHAR

z959

(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. SuBBA RAO, JJ.)

¶15

Court Fee-Certified copies of the lower courts filed along with Criminal Revision Application-Whether chargeable ie•ith Court fees -Court Fees Act, z870 (VII of z870), s. 4, Sch. I, Art. 9.

¶16

The appellant who was aggrieved by the. orders passed by the Magistrate against him in a proceeding under s. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, took the matter before the High Court at Patna by a Criminal Revision Application and filed along with it the certified copies of the orders passed by the two courts below without any court fees. The High Court took the view that the

¶17

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1960(1)]

¶18

936

¶19

z95y practice prevailing in that Court that the said certified copies were chargeable with the payment of court fees was correct and Bibhuli Bhusan was justified by the provisions of Art. 9 of the Sch. I of the Chatterjee Co.urt Fees Act, 1870. The appellant contended, inter alia, that v. the policy which the Legislature had adopted in enacting the The Slate of Bihar provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to supply to an accused person relevant documents free of charge and that it would be inconsistent with this policy to require him to pay court fees on the certified copies of criminal orders and judg- ments.

¶20

Held, that under s. 4 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, copies of criminal judgments or orders which are intended to be filed before the High Court must bear the court fee stamp prescribed by Art. 9, Sch. I of the Act. J aines Paul Alexander v. J antes Arthur Edwards, I.L.R. 1953 T.-C. 69, approved.

¶21

Held, further, that in the construction of the provisions of the Court Fees Act, hypothetical considerations about the policy on which the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure might be based would not be relevant. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 1957.

¶22

Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 25, 1957, of the Patna High Court, in Criminal Revision No. 924 of 1957.

¶23

P. K. Chatterjee, for the appellant.

¶24

N. S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for the respondent.

¶25

October 6. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶26

Gajendragadkar J. GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court at Patna, raises a short question about the confitruction of Art. 9 in Sch. I of Court Fees Act VII of 1870 (hereinafter called the Act). A proceeding was instituted against the appellant, Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee, under s. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of the Magistrate of F'irst Class at Bhagalpur; in this proceeding the learned magistrate directed the appellant 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 appellant challenged this order by his appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge at

937

•S.C.R.

. .

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶31

\

¶32

Bhagalpur. The appellate judge agreed with the I9S9 decision of the learned magistrate and the appeal pre . ferred by the appellant, was dismissed. T e h appe 1 lant Dibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee then took this matter before the High Court at Patna. v. by his Criminal Revision Application No. 924 of 1957. Tlie Slate of Biha, - It appears that the certified copies of the orders passed by the two courts below in the present proceedings Gajendragadkar J. had been filed by the appellant along with his revisional application without. any court fees. The appellant was then called upon to pay court fee of the value of Rt> 52·75 and Rs. 50·75 nP. on the two orders respectively. The appellant questioned the validity of this order, and so his revisional application was placed before the High Court for the decision of the question as to whether the two certified copies were chargeable with .the payment of court fees as directed by the stamp reporter. The High Court took the view that the report made by the stamp reporter was consistent with the practiee which the High Court had followed in this matter and the said practice was mlly justified by the provisions of Art. 9. In the result the contention raised by the appellant that no stamp need be affixed to the two orders was rejected and he was directed to affix the necessary stamps within two weeks from the date of the order. The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court uncler Art. 134(l)(c) of the Constitution that the appellant's case was fit for appeal to this Court. It is with this certificate. that the appellant has come to this Court; and on his behalf it has been urged by lVIr. P. K. Chatterjee that the view taken by the Patna High Court is inconsistent with the true construction of Art. 9. We have been told that this appeal is being fought as a test case in order to test the validity of the relevant practice prevailing in the Patna High Court.

¶33

lVIr. Chatterjee contends that in construing Art. 9 it would be relevant to bear in mind the policy which L,egislature has deliberately adopted in enacting the material provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with the question of supplying to the accused persons requisite copies under the Code. Section 173

¶34

938

¶35

' . -

¶36

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]

¶37

z959 (4) of the Code requires that before the commencement Bibhuti Bhusan of the enquiry or trial the officer in charge of the Chatterjee police station shall furnish or cause to be furnished to v. the accused free of cost any copy of the report forward. Th• State of BihaY ed under sub-s. (1) and of the First Information Report recorded under s. 154 and all other documents or Gajendyagadkar J. relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely. Section 207 ., sub-s. (3) requires that the magistrate shall satisfy himseJf when the accused appears or is brought before him that the requirements of s. 173(4) have been duly complied with. Under s. 210, sub-s. (2), as soon as the charge is framed against the accused it shall be read and explained to him and a copy thereof shall, ifhe so requires, be given to him free of cost. Section 251A, sub-s. (1), requires that if s. 173(4) has not been complied with, the magistrate shall require that the documents in question shall be furnished to the accused free of charge. Similarly s. 371(1) provides that on an application· of the accused a copy of the judgment shall in any case, other than a summons case, be given free of cost ; and the proviso to s. 548 authorises the court to furnish to the accused a copy of the judge's charge to the jury or of any order or deposition or other part of the record free of cost if the court is satisfied that there is some special reason to do so. The argument is that the policy of Legislature is to supply· to the accused person relevant documents free of charge and it would be inconsistent with this policy to require him to pay court fees on the certified copies of criminal orders and judgments under Art. 9.

¶38

It is also urged that the provisions of the Court Fees Act should be strictly construed in favour of the litigant and no document should be held chargeable with court fees unless it is clearly proved that it falls within the mischief of the relevant provisions of the Act. In other words, the appellant's case is that we should adopt a liberal construction of Art. 9 in dealing with his present contention. We are not impressed by either of the two arguments.

¶39

Whatever may be the policy on which the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal-Procedure are based

¶40

939

¶41

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶42

r⁹⁵⁹

¶43

any consideration based on the said policy would not r⁹⁵⁹ be of any assistance in construing the provisions of Bibhuti Bhusan the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides that no docu- Chatterjee ment of any of the kinds specified in the First or v. Second Schedule to the Act annexed, as chargeable The Stat• of Billa• with fees, shall be filed, exhibited or recorded, or shall Ga ·ma agadkar 1. be received or furnished, in any court unless in tespect ~ ' of such document there be paid a fee of an amount prescribed by the relevant provisions of the Act. It is thus obvious that every document which falls within the purview of s. 4 must bear the court fee prescribed by the relevant provision; and so the question as to whether a particular document falls within s. 4 and a.s such 1must pay the court fees prei;1cribed for it must be decided solely by reference to the relevant provisions of the Act. In the construction of the said provisions a.ny hypothetical considerations a.bout the policy of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure would hardly be of any assistance.

¶44

Similarly it would be idle to rely on the principle. of liberal construction of Art. 9 unless it is shown that the said article is capable of two constructions. If the words used in Art. 9 a.re reasonably capable of the construction for which the appellant contends it may be open to him to urge that the alternative construction which maklils the document subject to the charge of the court fees should not be accepted; but, if the words used in the article a.re reasbnably capable of only one construction, the doctrine of liberal construction would be wholly out of place. Whether or not the effect of Art. 9 is equitable, fair or just would be irrelevant if the meaning of the article is plain and clear. As Lord Blackburn observed in Ooltness Iron Oompany v. Black (1) in dealing with the question of construing a. taxing provision " when the intention is sufficiently shown it is, I think, vain to speculate on what would be the fairest a.nd most equitable mode of levying the ta.x." It is, therefore, necessary to turn to Art. 9 and decide what it means on a fe.ir and reasonable construction.

¶45

Article 6 of Sch. I deals with the payment of court fees for a copy or translation of a. judgment or (1) (i88o-~1) 6 A.C. 315, 330.

940

i

~ ~ ~ r

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]

¶50

r959 order not being or having the force of a decree, whereas Art. 7. deals with the copy of a decree. It is Bibhu•i Bhusan obvious that the orders with which we are concerned Chatterjee v. in the present appeal do not fall under either Art. 6 or The Slale of Bih., Art. 7. Art. 9 reads thus:-

¶51

Gajendtagadkar J.

¶52

-~------·---- Number
;:·c~~;:--~fanyrevenue or judicial proceeding or order not otherwise provided for bythis Act, orcopyofany account, statement, report orthelike, taken outof anyCivil or Criminal or RevenueCourt or Office, or from theofficeofany chief officer chargedwith theexecutiveadministra- tionofa Division.	IFo;·every~tbreebundr- ed andsixtywords or fractionofthree hundred andsixty words.	Eightannas.

¶53

It is clear that a copy of a statement or report or the like taken out of a criminal court is expressly provided for by the latter part of Art. 9 ; and so it would be impossible to accept the argument that proceedings in criminal courts are wholly outside the purview of the relevant articles of Sch. I. If a copy of a statement made in a criminal court is filed it must bear the court fees prescribed by Art. 9 ; this position is not disputed. It cannot also be disputed that the proceeding in a criminal court is a judicial proceeding. Section 4, sub-s. (m), of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines a judicial proceeding as including any proceeding in the course of which evidence is, or may be, legally taken on oath. Thus there can be no doubt that an order passed in a criminal proceeding is an order passed in a judicial proceeding, and it is common ground that orders like those in the present appeal are not otherwise provided for by the Act. It is not contended before us that the judgments delivered by the courts below in proceedings taken under s. 107 of the Code are not orders, or do not constitute a part of the judicial proceeding. So, if a copy of an order or judgment delivered in a criminal proceeding is intended to be filed before the High Court it clearly attracts the provisions of Art. 9. The words used in Art. 9 are clear and unambiguous, and in our opinion, on a fair

¶54

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 941

¶55

and reasonable construction, they lead only to one 1 959 conclusion and that is that the copies of the criminal Bibhuti Bhusan judgments or orders must bear the court fee stamp Chatterjee prescribed by Art. 9. That is the view .taken by the v. High Court consistently with the practice prevailing Thi s1a11 of Bihar in the High Court for several years. We are satisfied . 4 --:a11 1 that the view of the High Court and the practice Ga;en rac ar • prevailing there are wholly justified by the provisions of Art. 9. This question was raised before the Trava.ncore-Cochin High Court in James Paul Alexander v. James Arthur Edwards (1) where the same view has been ta.ken about the construction of the corresponding article, Art. 10, of the Court Fees Act.

¶56

We may add that there is some force in the contention raised by the appellant that the court fee prescribed by Art. 9 may sometimes work hardship on accused persons ; but that is a matter of policy with which we are not concerned. The Legislature may, however, consider whether it would not be appropriate to enact a suitable provision dealing with copies of criminal orders and judgments as has been done in Madras. The Madras Legislature has inserted Art. 6-A in Sch. I of the Act by Act V of 1922, prescribing a uniform court fee of 8 as. for the copy or translation of a judgment or order of a criminal court. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶57

Appf.(ll dismissed.

¶58

THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, MAINPURI

v.

KANHAIYA LAL

:r959 Oclob1r 6

(P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR and K. SuBBA. RAO, JJ.)

¶63

Municipality-Toll-Vehicle carrying goods from one place lo another within municipal limits-Liability-U. P. Municipalities Act, I9I6 (U. P. Act No II of r9r6), s. rz8(r)(vii)~

¶64

The respondent was engaged by the Mainpuri Electric Supply and General Mills Co. Ltd., to carry coal from the Railway goodsshed to its premises. He loaded his truck with coal at the goodsshed and was carrying the same to the premises of the electric (1) I.L.R. 1953 T. C. 69. Jl!jl

Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balkrishna Savalram Pujari and Others versus Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan & Others

The State of Madhya Pradesh versus Mubarak Ali

Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., Calcutta versus Their Workmen

The Municipal Board, Mainpuri versus Kanhaiya Lal

The State of Rajasthan versus Rehman

Union of India versus Amar Singh