minal Appeal No 128 of 1955
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 8 1955 of the Allahabad High Court in Government Appeal No 165 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and order dated July 24 1953 of the Court of the Civil and Sessions Judge at Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No 5 of 1953
G C Mathur and C P Lal for the appellant
section N Andley for the respondents
February 14
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS C J
The respondents before us were put up for trial for offences under sections 147 302 325 and 326 Indian Penal Code read with section 149 of the same Code
On July 24 1953 the temporary Civil Sessions Judge Gorakhpur acquitted them The State of Uttar Pra 162 1276 desh apparently felt aggrieved by this acquittal and intended to appeal to the High Court under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Under article 157 of the Indian Limitation Act an appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure from an order of acquittal is required to be filed within six months from the date of the order appealed from
The period of limitation for appealing from the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge on July 241953 therefore expired on January 24 1954
That day being a Sunday the Deputy Government Advocate on January 25 1954 filed a petition of appeal on behalf of that State
A plain copy of the judgment sought to be appealed from was filed with that petition
The High Court office immediately made a note that the copy of the judgment filed along with the petition of appeal did not appear to be a certified copy
After the judicial records of the case had been received by the High Court an application for a certified copy of the judgment of the trial court was made on behalf of the State on February 12 1954
The certified copy was received by the Deputy Government Advocate on February 231954 and he presented it before the High Court in February 25 1954 when Harish Chandra J made an order that the certified copy be accepted and that three days  further time be granted to the appellant for making an application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay in the filing of the certified copy
Accordingly an application for the condonation of delay was made by the appellant on the same day and that application was directed to be laid before a Division Bench for necessary orders
The application came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of M C Desai and N U Beg JJ
Ai the hearing of that application learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that as there was in the circumstances of this case sufficient cause for not filing the certified copy along with the petition of appeal the delay should be condoned and that in any event the filing of the plain copy of the judgment of the trial court along with the petition of appeal constituted a sufficient compliance with the requirements 1277 of section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
By their judgment delivered on December 7 1954 both the learned Judges took the view that no case had been made out for extending the period of limitation under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and dismissed the application and nothing further need be said on that point
The learned judges however differed on the question as to whether the filing of a plain copy of the judgment appealed from was a sufficient compliance with the law M C Desai J holding that it was and N U Beg J taking the contrary view
The two Judges having differed they directed the case to be laid before the Chief Justice for obtaining a third Judge s opinion on that question
Raghubar Dayal J to whom the matter was referred by his judgment dated January 31 1955 expressed the opinion that the word  copy  in section 419 meant a certified copy and directed his opinion to be laid before the Division Bench
In view of the opinion of the third Judge the Division Bench held that the memorandum of appeal had not been accompanied by  a copy  within the meaning of section 419 and that on February 25 1954 when a certified copy came to be filed the period of limitation for appealing against the order of acquittal passed on July 24 1953 had already expired and that as the application for extension of the period of limitation had been dismissed the appeal was time barred and they accordingly dismissed the appeal
The learned Judges however by the same order gave the appellant a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court
Hence this appeal
Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which the appeal was filed provides as follows  419
Every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his pleader and every such petition shall unless the Court to which it is presented otherwise directs be accompanied by a copy of the judgment or order appealed against and in cases tried by a jury a copy of the heads of the charge recorded under section 367
1278 The sole question raised in this appeal is whether this section requires a petition of appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from
It will be noticed that the section requires  a copy  of the judgment to be filed along with the petition of appeal
There can be no doubt that the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word  copy  is a reproduction or transcription of an original writing
As the section does not in terms require a certified copy it is urged on behalf of the appellant that the word  copy  with reference to a document has only one ordinary meaning namely a transcript or reproduction of the original document and that there being nothing uncertain or ambiguous about the word  copy  no question of construction or interpretation of the section can at all arise
It is contended that it is the duty of the court to apply its aforesaid ordinary and grammatical meaning to the word  copy  appearing in section 419 and that it should be held that the filing of a plain copy of the judgment along with the petition of appeal was a sufficient compliance with the requirements of that section
The matter however does not appear to us to be quite so simple
A  copy  may be a plain copy i e an un official copy or a certified copy i e an official copy
If a certified copy of the judgment is annexed to the petition of appeal nobody can say that the requirements of section 419 have not been complied with for a certified copy is none the less a  copy 
That being the position a question of construction does arise as to whether the word  copy  used in section 419 refers to a plain copy or to a certified copy or covers both varieties of copy
It is well settled that  the words of a statute when there is doubt about their meaning are to be understood in the sense in which they beat harmonise with the subject of the enactment and the object which the Legislature has in view
Their meaning is found not so much in a strictly grammatical or etymological propriety of language nor even in its popular use as in the subject or in the occasion on which they are used and the object to be attained  Maxwell s Interpretation of Statutes 10th Edition 1279 page 52
In order therefore to come to a decision as to the true meaning of a word used in a Statute one has to enquire as to the subject matter of the enactment and the object which the Legislature had in view
This leads us to a consideration of some of the relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other enactments having a material bearing on the question before us
Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is in Chapter XXVI headed Of the Judgment  requires that the judgment in every trial in any criminal court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open court and in the language of the court
Section 367 requires every such judgment to be written by the presiding officer or from his dictationtion  in the language of the court or in English containing the point or points for determination the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision
The judgement has to be dated land signed by the presiding officer in open court
Except as otherwise provided by law section 369 forbids the court after it has signed its judgment from altering or reviewing the same except to correct mere clerical errors
After the judgment is pronounced and signed it has under section 372 to be filed with the record of proceedings and becomes a part of the record and remains in the custody of the officer who is in charge of the records
Under section 371 when an accused is sentenced to death and an appeal lies from such judgment as of right the court is to inform him of the period within which he may if he so wishes prefer his appeal and when he is sentenced to imprisonment a copy of the findings and sentence must as soon as may be after the delivery of the judgment be given to him free of cost without any application
This however is without prejudice to his right to obtain free of cost on an application made by him a  copy  of the judgment or order and in trials by jury a  copy  of the heads of charge to the jury
The copy that is supplied to the accused under sub section
4 of section 371 is not a full copy of the entire judgment but the copies supplied to him under sub sections 1 and 2 of section 371 on application made by 1280 him are full copies of the judgment or the heads of the charge to the jury as the case may be
The copy of the findings  and the sentence which is supplied to the accused under sub section
4 without his asking for the same is presumably to enable him to decide for himself whether he would appeal against his conviction and the sentence
The copies which are supplied to the accused under sub sections
1 and 2 on his application for such copies are obviously full copies of the entire judgment or the heads of charges as the case may be and are intended to enable him to prepare his grounds of appeal should he decide to prefer one and to file the same along with his petition of appeal as required by section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
There are no provisions corresponding to section 371 for giving any copy of the judgment to the State or the public prosecutor representing the State in case of an act uittal
If therefore the State desires to file an appeal against acquittal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the State will have to procure a copy of the judgment or the heads of charge in order to enable it to file the same along with its petition of appeal and thereby to comply with the requirements of section 419
According to section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act a judgment being the Act or record of the act of a judicial officer would be included in the category of public documents
Under section 548 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if a person affected by a judgment desires to have a copy of the judge s charge to the jury or of any order or deposition or other part of the record he has the right on applying for such copy to be furnished therewith
A person desirous of such a copy has to apply for it to the public officer having the custody of it and under section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act such public officer is bound to
give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees thereof together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document that is to say to supply to the applicant what is known as a certified copy
Therefore whether it is the accused person who applies for a copy under section 371  1281 sub sections
1 and 2 or it is the State which applies for a copy the copy supplied by the public officer must be a certified copy
Then when section 419 requires that a copy of the judgment or of the heads of charge be filed along with the petition of appeal it is not unreasonable to hold that it is the certified copy so obtained that must be filed
Under articles 154 155 and 157 of the Indian Limitation Act the petition of appeal has to be filed within the time specified in those articles
Obviously it may take a little time to apply for and procure a certified copy
In order that the full period of limitation be available to the intending appellant section 12 of the Limitation Act permits the deduction of the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the judgment or the heads of charge in ascertaining whether the appeal is filed within time
A certified copy of the judgment will on the face of it show when the copy was applied for when it was ready for delivery and when it was actually delivered and the court may at a glance ascertain what time was requisite for obtaining the copy so as to deduct the same from the computation of the period of limitation
Taking all relevant facts into consideration namely that a St copy  of the judgment has to be filed along with the petition of appeal that the copies of the judgment which the accused gets free of cost under section 371 1 and 2 read with section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act and which the State can obtain on an application made by it under section 76 of the last mentioned Act can only be certified copies that the time requisite for obtaining such copies is to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation all quite clearly indicate that the copy to be filed with the petition of appeal must be a certified copy
Section 419 requires a copy of the judgment or order appealed against to be filed not without some purpose
That purpose becomes clear when we pass on to section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
That section enjoins the court on receiving the petition of appeal and copy of the judgment or order appealed from under section 419 to peruse the same and after 1282 perusing the same to do one of the two things namely if it finds that there is no sufficient ground for interfering to dismiss the appeal summarily or when the court does not dismiss the appeal summarily then under section 422 to cause notice to be given to the appellant or his pleader and to such officer as the Provincial Cxovernment may appoint in this behalf of the time and place at which such appeal will be heard and furnish such officer with a copy of the grounds of appeal and in a case of appeal under section 417 as in the present case to cause a like notice to be given to the accused
The act of summarily rejecting the appeal or admitting it and issuing notice is necessarily a judicial act and obviously it must be founded on proper materials
The authenticity or correctness of the copy of a judgment is also essential in order to enable the appellate court to make interlocutory orders which may have serious consequences
In the case of an appeal by the accused he may ask for the stay of the execution of the order eg of the realisation of the fine or he may move the court for bail
Likewise in the case of an appeal by the State the State may ask for the accused to be apprehended and brought before the court under warrant of arrest
Orders made on these applications are all judicial acts and accordingly it is essential that the appellate court in order to take these judicial decisions have proper materials before it
Therefore it is of the utmost importance that the copy to be filed with the petition of appeal is a full and correct copy of the judgment or order appealed against
Under section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act the public officer who is to supply a copy is required to append a certificate in writing at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy and then to put the date and to subscribe the same with his name and official title
Therefore the production of a certified copy ipso facto and without anything more will show ex facie that it is a correct copy on which the appellate court may safely act
The fact that the appellate court is by law enjoined to peruse the copy of the judgment and take judicial decision on it indicates that it must have before it a correct copy of the judgment 1283 and this further indicates that the copy required to be filed with the petition of appeal under section 419 should be a certified copy which will ipso facto assure the appellate court of its correctness
It is said that the appellate court may not summarily reject or admit the appeal or make an inter  locutory order until the record is produced or until a certified copy of the judgment or order is presented before it
There is no doubt that the court can under section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure call for the record of the case but the court is not bound to do so
The calling for the records in every case or keeping the proceedings in abeyance until a certified copy is presented before the court is bound to involve delay and there is no apparent reason why there should be any delay in disposing of criminal matters involving the personal liberty of the convicted accused
All this inconvenience may easily be obviated if section 419 be read and understood to require a certified copy to be filed along with the petition of appeal
Learned counsel for the appellant urges that in case of urgency the court need not wait until the record or the certified copy is received but may call upon the appellant to adduce evidence to prove the correctness of the judgment in order to induce the court to act upon it and take a judicial decision thereon
In the first place there is no such procedure envisaged in the Code of Criminal Procedure
In the next place adoption of such a procedure may cause much delay and in the third place no question ordinarily arises under section 419 of proving the correctness of the judgment under appeal in the way in which a document is to be proved in order to tender it in evidence in the case
But assuming that the correctness of the judgment under appeal is to be established then as soon as the appellant is out to  prove by oral evidence of witnesses the contents of the original judgment so as to establish the correctness of the plain copy filed along with his petition of appeal the question will immediately arise whether such evidence is admissible under the law
As already stated section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the judgment to be 163 1284 reduced to writing
Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act provides inter alia that in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document and a judgment is so requiredno evidence shall be given for the proof of the terms of such matter except the document itself or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the earlier provisions of that Act
In the absence of the production of the original judgment if a witness is put into a witness box and is asked to say whether the copy produced before the appellate court is a correct copy of the original judgment filed of record in the trial court he will necessarily have to say that he read the original judgment and from his memory he can say that the copy correctly reproduces the text of the original judgment
This means that he will give secondary evidence as to the contents of the original judgment which under the law is required to be reduced to the form of a document
A further question will therefore arise if such evidence which at best is secondary evidence is admissible under the Indian Evidence Act
As already stated the judgment which under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be in writing and under section 372 has to be filed with the record of the proceedings becomes under section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act a public document  As the original judgment is a public document within the meaning of section 74 only a certified copy of such document and no other kind of secondary evidence is admissible under section 65
This circumstance also indicates that the word  copy  in section 419 means in the context a certified copy and so it was held in Ram Lat vs Ghanasham Das 1
The decision in Firm Chhota LalAmba Parshad vs Firm Basdeo Mal Hira Lal 2 proceeded on its peculiar facts namely  that no certified copy could be obtained as the original judgment could not be traced in the record and the decision can be supported on the ground that the court had in the circumstances dispensed with the production of a certified copy
i AIR 1923Lab
2 AIR 1926 Lah
1285 Learned counsel for the appellant next urges that the fact that the appellate court to which the petition of appeal is presented is given power to dispense with the filing of a copy of the judgment appealed against indicates that the Legislature did not consider the c filing of the copy to be essential and that if the filing of the copy is not essential and copy can be wholly dispensed with a plain copy should be sufficient for the purpose of section 419
This power of dispensation had to be given to the court for very good reasons
In certain cases an order staying the operation of the order sought to be appealed from may be immediately necessary and the matter may be so urgent that it cannot brook the delay which will inevitably occur if a certified copy of the judgment or order has to be obtained
In some cases it may be that a certified copy of the same judgment is already before the same court in an analogous or connected appeal and the filing of another certified copy of that very judgment may be an unnecessary formality
The circumstance that the court may in urgent cases dispense with the filing of a copy does not imply that in a case where the court does not think fit to do so it should be content with a plain copy of the document which ex facie contains no guarantee as to its correctness
Reference has been made to a number of sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the word  copy  has been used and to sections 425 428 442 and 511 which it is said talk about certified copy and on this circumstance is founded the argument that where the Legislature insists on the production of a certified copy it says so expressly and that as the word copy used in section 419 is not qualified by the word  certified  the inference is irresistible that the filing of a plain copy was intended to be sufficient for the purpose of that section
Turning to the four last mentioned sections it will be noticed that the first three sections 425 428 and 442 do not really refer to any certified copy of any document at all
Section 425 requires that whenever a case is decided on appeal by the High Court under Chapter XXXI it shall certify its judgment or order to the court by which the finding sentence or 1286 order appealed against was recorded or passed
It really means that the High Court is to formally communicate its decision on the appeal to the court against whose decision the appeal had been taken
Likewise section 428 requires the court taking additional evidence to certify such evidence to the appellate court
Section 442 requires the High Court to certify its decision on revision to the court by which the finding sentence or order revised was recorded or passed
Lastly section 511 lays down the mode of proof of a previous conviction or acquittal namely by the production of an extract certified under the hand of the officer having the custody of the records of the court to be a copy of the sentence or order
Therefore the four sections relied on do not in reality refer to certified copy of a judgment or order supplied to a party on his application for such copy and consosuently no argument such as has been sought to be raised is maintainable
The question whether a copy in a particular section means a plain copy or a certified copy must depend on the subject or context in which the word  copy  is used in such section
In many sections relied on the  copy  is intended to serve only as a notice to the person concerned or the public and is not intended to be acted upon by a court for the purpose of making a judicial order thereon
We think that N U Beg J rightly pointed out that the object and purpose of such sections are distinguishable from those of section 419 where the copy is intended to be acted upon by the appellate court for the purpose of founding its judicial decision on it
We do not consider it desirable on the present occasion to express any opinion as to whether any of those sections relied on requires a plain copy or a certified copy
It will suffice for us to hold that so far as section 419 is concerned having regard to the context and the purpose of that section the copy to be filed along with the petition of appeal must be a certified copy
We have also been referred to several sections of the Code of Civil Procedure where the word  copy  is used
We do not consider it right to enter upon a 1287 discussion as to the true interpretation of the word  copy occurring in any of those sections for we think that each section in each Act must for its true meaning and effect depend on its own language context and setting
In the result for reasons stated above we agree that the order passed by the Allahabad High Court on February 8 1955 was correct and this appeal should be dismissed
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
 The question which arose for determination in this case was whether a Letters Patent Appeal would lie to a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat from an interlocutory order of a Single Judge of that High Court in the course of the trial of an election petition filed under the Representation of the People Act 1951
The appellant and respondents Nos
1 to 6 were candidates at an election held to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of the Gujarat State
The appellant was declared elected
Thereupon the 1st respondent filed an election petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the election of the appellant on a number of allegations and in order to establish his case he filed an application before the Single Judge who was trying the election petition to direct the Returning Officer to produce all the records of the election mentioned in the application and prayed for permission to inspect the same
The appellant opposed the prayers made by the 1st respondent
The Single Judge declined to grant the application made by the Ist respondent
Against the order of the Single Judge the Ist respondent preferred an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Gujarat High Court
The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal to the extent indicated in its judgment overruling the contention of the appellant that the appeal was not maintainable as there was no provision in the Act permitting an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court against an interlocutory order of a Single Judge hearing an election petition filed under the Act
Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench the appellant moved this Court for relief by special leave
Allowing the appeal setting aside the judgment of the Division 1044 Bench of the High Court and dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal while expressing no opinion on the merits of the case the Court  HELD The only point urged in this appeal by the appellant was that the appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court against the interlocutory order passed by the Single Judge was not maintainable and therefore the judgment of the Division Bench was liable to be set aside
1048C D Under the provisions of the Act as amended and the provisions of the Constitution of India no Court exercising power under any ordinary law other than the Judge of a High Court who had been assigned the work of trying an election petition under sub section 2 of section 80 A of the Act and the Supreme Court which was empowered to hear an appeal against any order passed by the judge of the High Court under section 98 or section 99 of the Act could decide any question arising out of an election petition
The power of the Supreme Court under the provisions of the Constitution was however unaffected by any of the provisions of the Act
It meant that when an election petition was pending in the High Court only the judge who was asked to try the election petition could deal with the questions arising in it and no other judge or judges of the High Court could deal with them
When an order was passed under section 98 or section 99 of the Act by a judge of the High Court in an election petition it was subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under section 116 A of the Act Article 136 of the Constitution being excluded in view of the express provisions of section 116 A of the Act and being resorted to by any party aggrieved by any order passed by the judge trying an election petition not falling under section 98 or section 99 of the Act
It followed that the Division Bench of the High Court which was entitled to hear an appeal against any order of a Single Judge under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court which was an ordinary law could not hear an appeal against any interlocutory order passed in the course of the trial of an election petition by the Judge trying the election petition since the Division Bench was not specified in the Act as an appellate authority which could deal with questions arising out of an election petition filed under the Act
1053G H 1054A D Under clause 15 of the Letters Patent an appeal no doubt lay from an order of a Single Judge of the High Court exercising Original Jurisdiction to the High Court itself irrespective of the fact that the judgment was preliminary or final or that it was one passed at an interlocutory stage provided it satisfied certain conditions but the said 1045 provision could not be extended to an election petition filed under the Act
Conferment of the power to try an election petition under the Act did not amount to enlargement of the existing jurisdiction of the High Court
The jurisdiction exercisable by the Single Judge under the Act was a special jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by virtue of Article 329b of the Constitution
In view of the limited nature of the appeal expressly provided in section 116 A of the Act it should be held that any other right of appeal excluding that under the Constitution was taken away by necessary implication
Therefore it was difficult to subscribe to the view that when once the jurisdiction to try an election petition was conferred on the High Court all other powers incidental to the ordinary original jurisdiction exercised by a single Judge of a High Court would become applicable to an election petition under the Act
If the Parliament had intended that the Division Bench of the High Court should exercise its appellate jurisdiction under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court probably it would not have enacted sub section 7 of section 86 of the Act having regard to the well known tendency of one or the other party to an election petition preferring appeals against the interlocutory orders to the Division Bench
If such appeals against the interlocutory orders to the High Court were permitted perhaps no election dispute would be finally settled till the next election became due
As regards the jurisdiction to try an election petition and the right of appeal of the parties to an election petition the provisions of the Act apart from the provisions in the Constitution constituted a complete code and no Judge or Judges other than the Single Judge of the High Court who was asked to try an election petition and the Supreme Court exercising the appellate powers under section 116 A of the Act in respect of orders passed under section 98 or section 99 of the Act or under Article 136 of the Constitution in respect of other orders could have any jurisdiction to deal with any matter arising out of an election petition filed under the Act
The Court disagreed with the view expressed on this question by the Gujarat High Court in Dr Chotalal Jivabhai Patel vs Vadilal Lallubhai Mehta  Ors 12 Gujarat Law Reporter 850 and overruled that decision of the High Court
The Court also overruled the decision of the Madras High Court in Kadiravan alias Shamsudeen vs B Thirumalaikumar ILR 1970 2 Mad
183 and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs Ramratan Chaturvedi  Ors AIR 1986 Madhya Pradesh 165 which had taken the same view as in Dr Chotalal Jivabhai Patel s Case supra
The Court agreed with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Siaram vs Nathuram  Ors 1968 ALL
LJ 576 and by the Rajasthan High Court in Ramdhar vs Shanwar Lal AIR which held that by necessary 1046 implication an appeal to the High Court from an interlocutory order of the Single Judge of the High Court in the course of trial of an election petition filed under the Act was excluded
1054G H 1055A H 1056A H The Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by the Ist respondent against the interlocutory order passed by the Single Judge who was trying the election petition
Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court set aside Letters Patent Appeal dismissed
1057B Dr Chotalal Jivabhai Patel vs Vadilal Lallubhai Mehta Shamsudeen vs B Thirumalai Kumar ILR  and Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs Ramratan Chaturvedi and Ors AIR 1986 Madhya Pradesh 165 overruled
Siaram vs Nathuram and Ors 1968 All
LJ 576 and Ramdhan vs Bhanwarlal AIR approved
NP Ponnuswami vs Returning Officer Namekkal Constitutency and others   Shah Babulal Khimji vs Jayaban D Kania  Anr  and National Telephone Company Ltd vs Post Master General 1913 AC546 referred to