http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: PRATAP SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH (NOW MADHYA PRADESH)

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/11/1960

BENCH: IMAM, SYED JAFFER BENCH: IMAM, SYED JAFFER KAPUR, J.L. GUPTA, K.C. DAS DAYAL, RAGHUBAR AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA

CITATION:  1961 AIR  586            1961 SCR  (2) 509

ACT: Criminal Procedure-Right of Appeal-Procedure when  appellant in  jail-If discriminatory-Finality of order on  appeal-Code of  Criminal Procedure 1898 (V of 1898) ss. 420,  421,  430- Constitution of India Art. 14.

HEADNOTE: The appellant filed an appeal while he was in jail which was summarily dismissed on merits.  Thereafter lie filed a Memo- randum of Appeal through a pleader which was rejected on the ground that it was not maintainable owing to his appeal from jail  under S. 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  having been  dismissed  earlier.  His review  petition  before  the judicial Commissioner was also dismissed but his prayer  for certificate under Art. 132(1) was granted. The  question  was whether S. 421 of the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure  which enables a court to dismiss an appeal  filed by a convicted person, while he was in jail, without hearing him offended against Art. 14 of the Constitution. Held,  that  the Code of Criminal Procedure  in  giving  the right  of appeal in Ch.  XXXI based it on  a  classification which was rational and reasonably connected with the  object the  Legislature had in view in enacting that chapter.   The position of a convicted person in jail, and therefore unable to present an appeal either in person or through a  pleader, was entirely different and distinct from that of a convicted person who was able to do so.  The Proviso to s. 421 of  the Code  of  Criminal Procedure in no way offends  against  the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Held,  also, that a second appeal from the same judgment  of conviction presented through a pleader was not  maintainable because the previous order dismissing the first appeal under S. 420 presented from jail was lawful and final under S. 430 of the Code.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.  Criminal Appeal No. 106 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

1956.  Appeal  from  the Judgment and Order dated the  7th  April, 1956, of the former Judicial Commissioner’s 65 510 Court, Vindhya Pradesh, Rewa in Misc.  Crl.  Application No. 70 of 1956. A.   D. Mathur for the Appellant. B.   K. B. Naidu and I. N. Shroff for the Respondent. 1960.  November 18.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM,  J.-The  Judicial  Commissioner  of  Vindhya   Pradesh granted a certificate under Art. 132(1) of the  Constitution of  India as in his opinion the case involved a  substantial question   of   law  as  to  the   interpretation   of   the Constitution.  Hence the present appeal. The appellant was convicted under s. 307, Indian Penal  Code and s. 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act by the Sessions Judge of Chatarpur.    He  was  sentenced  to  10   years’   rigorous imprisonment under s. 307, Indian Penal Code and to 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment under s. 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act. He filed an appeal while he was in jail which was  summarily dismissed  on  merits on October 28, 1955.   Thereafter,  on October 31, 1955, he filed a Memorandum of Appeal through  a pleader  which  was  rejected on November 1,  1955,  on  the ground that it was not maintainable owing to his appeal from jail  under s. 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  having been dismissed on October 28, 1955. Thereafter,   he  filed  a  petition  before  the   Judicial Commissioner   that  the  order  dated  October  28,   1955, dismissing  his appeal from jail should be reviewed and  his appeal should be reheard on merits.  This petition was  also dismissed  by the Judicial Commissioner.  The appellant  had prayed  for a certificate under Arts. 132 and 134(c) of  the Constitution.  The Judicial Commissioner was of the  opinion that  no  ground  had  been  established  for  grant  of   a certificate under Art. 134(c) but a certificate should issue under Art. 132(1). The  only  question  for determination  in  this  appeal  is whether the case involves any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.  It 511 had been urged before the Judicial Commissioner that s.  421 of  the Code of Criminal Procedure which enabled a court  to dismiss an appeal filed by a convicted person, while he  was in jail, without hearing him offended against Art. 14 of the Constitution as it discriminated between him and a convicted person who presented his appeal either in person or  through a pleader. Before  we  consider  whether s. 421  of  the  Code  offends against the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution it  is desirable  to  set out shortly the scheme of  appeals  under Chapter  XXXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure  before  its amendment  which  came  into force  in  1956.   Section  404 expressly states that no appeal shall lie from any  judgment or  order of a criminal court except as provided for by  the Code or by any other law for the time being in force.   This provision  is in accordance with the general principle  that no  appeal  lies as a matter of right unless  the  right  of appeal is conferred by law.  There are various provisions in Chapter XXXI providing for an appeal from various orders and sentences  passed  by  the  Criminal  courts.   Section  410 enables  any person convicted at a trial held by a  Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge to appeal to the  High Court.  The Court of Judicial Commissioner, Vindhya Pradesh,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

was  a High Court for the purposes of the Code.  The  appeal of  the  appellant  from jail  against  his  conviction  and sentence by the Sessions Judge therefore lay to the Court of the  Judicial Commissioner.  Under s. 418 an appeal may  lie on a matter of fact as well as a matter of law, except where the  trial was by jury, in which case, the appeal would  lie only on a matter of law, except in a case where a person had been sentenced to death, his appeal would lie on a matter of fact  as well as a matter of law although he was tried by  a jury.   The section also enables any other person  convicted at the same trial with a person so sentenced to appeal on  a matter  of  fact as well as a matter of  law.   Section  419 enjoins  that  every appeal shall be made in the form  of  a petition  in  writing  presented by  the  appellant  or  his pleader and every such 512 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 jury a  copy of  the heads of the charge recorded under S. 367.   Section 420 enables a person who is in jail to present his  petition of  appeal  and  the copies accompanying  the  same  to  the Officer-In-charge  of the jail who shall  thereupon  forward such petition or copy to the proper Appellate Court.   Under s. 421 on receiving the petition and copy under s. 419 or s. 420  the  Appellate Court shall peruse the same  and  if  it considers   that  there  are  no  sufficient   grounds   for interfering, it may dismiss the appeal summarily.  There  is a  proviso  to  this section which  states  that  no  appeal presented  under  s.  419  shall  be  dismissed  unless  the appellant or his pleader has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same.  The only other  section for  the purpose of this appeal, to which reference need  be made,  is  s.  430 which states that  judgments  and  orders passed  by  an Appellate Court upon appeal shall  be  final, except  in  the  cases provided for in s.  417  and  Chapter XXXII. It  will  be seen from these provisions of the Code  that  a convicted  person, in cases where an appeal is provided  for by  the  Code,  may file a petition  of  appeal  in  writing presented by him or his pleader and that if he is in jail he may file his petition of appeal through the jail authorities who  are  obliged to forward the petition to  the  Appellate Court concerned.  Whether an appeal is filed under s. 419 or under  s.  420  of the Code, the Appellate  Court  has  been expressly authorized, after perusing the petition of  appeal and copies of the judgment or charge to the jury, if it con- siders that there is no sufficient ground for  interference, to  dismiss the appeal summarily.  In the present case,  the appellant  was  in  jail and he presented  his  petition  of appeal  to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner  under  s. 420   through  the  jail  authorities.   It  was   summarily dismissed on merits on October 28, 1955.  If that order  was lawfully made the decision of the Appellate Court was  final under  s.  430  of  the  Code.   Consequently,  the   appeal presented by 513 the  appellant through his pleader on October 31, 1955,  was patently not maintainable. We  come now to the question whether s. 421 offends  against the  provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution which  states that  the  State  shall not deny to 1  any  person  equality before  the law or the equal protection of the  laws  within the  territory  of India.  This Court has  decided  in  many cases  what  are the matters to be considered  in  order  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

determine  whether  a  particular piece  of  legislation  is discriminatory  and  consequently in  contravention  of  the provisions of Art. 14.  It is unnecessary to refer to  them. The object of Chapter XXXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure was  to  make provisions for appeals against  conviction  in certain cases.  Where no appeal is provided by this  Chapter no further question arises because no one can claim that  he has a right to appeal from any decision of a criminal court. Every  person convicted at a trial held by a Sessions  Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has been given the right  to appeal  to the High Court by virtue of the provisions of  s. 410  of the Code.  The right to appeal having been so  given the Code provided the manner in which such appeal should  be presented  which  is to be found in ss. 419 and 420  of  the Code.  These two sections contemplate various  possibilities (1) that a convicted person who is not in jail presents  his petition  of appeal in person; (2) that a  convicted  person though  unable to present his petition of appeal  personally owing  to various reasons, including his being in jail,  can present  it through his pleader and (3) where the  convicted person is in jail and thus unable to present his petition in person  and  is unable to engage a pleader to  present  his, petition  of  appeal,  can  present  it  through  the   jail authorities.  Where the convicted person presents his appeal in person or through a pleader under s. 421 his appeal shall not be dismissed summarily unless he or his pleader is given a  reasonable opportunity of being heard in support  of  his petition.   No  such consideration arises in the case  of  a convicted  person who is unable to present his  petition  in person or through a pleader.  There is a rational basis for 514 making  the  classification  mentioned  above  which  has  a reasonable  connection  with the object of  the  legislation providing  for  appeals under Chapter XXXI.   Under  s.  410 there  is  no discrimination as any person  convicted  at  a trial  held  by a Sessions Judge or an  Additional  Sessions Judge  may  appeal to the High Court.  Where  the  convicted person  is able to present his petition of appeal in  person his  position  is entirely different from a  person  who  is unable  to  do  so  because he is  in  jail.   Similarly,  a convicted person whether in jail or not who can present  his petition through a pleader is in a different position from a convicted person who is in jail and is unable to present his petition  through a pleader.  The Code intended in the  case of  a convicted person who presents his petition  of  appeal while  in  jail that his petition and the  judgment  of  the court  which  convicted  him  must  be  considered  by   the Appellate Court before it is summarily dismissed,  otherwise the right of appeal conferred on such a person under s.  410 would  be  meaningless.   In the case of such  a  person  no question could arise of his being heard in person because he has  not presented the appeal in person nor could  there  be any  question of his pleader being heard because no  pleader had  been engaged by him to present the  appeal.   Different considerations  arise in the case of a convicted person  who presents  his  petition  of appeal in person  or  through  a pleader in which case he or his pleader must be heard before the  appeal is summarily dismissed.  There is, therefore,  a rational  basis  for making the  classification  into  three categories which has a reasonable connection with the object of  the  Code.   It could not therefore  be  said  that  the proviso to s’ 421 offends against the provisions of Art.  14 of the Constitution. It  was,  however, contended that although an  appeal  filed under s. 420 may have been dismissed summarily a  subsequent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

appeal filed through a pleader ought to have been heard  and the  Judicial Commissioner erred in holding that the  appeal did  not  lie.   The appeal could not  have  been  summarily rejected without the pleader having been 515 heard.  From that point of view the provisions of s. 421 had not been complied with.  It is sufficient to say that if the order  dated  October 28, 1955, dismissing  the  appellant’s appeal  under  s. 420 was lawful, a second appeal  from  the same judgment of conviction presented through a pleader  was not  maintainable  because the previous order  of  the  High Court  dismissing the appeal was final under s. 430  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure.  Certain cases were relied  upon to   which   reference  has  been  made  by   the   Judicial Commissioner.   Those  cases can be distinguished  from  the present case.  In none of them was it decided that where  an order  dismissing the appeal is lawful a  subsequent  appeal filed  through a pleader was maintainable.  In our  opinion, there  is no substance in this point, once it is  held  that the order dated October 28, 1955, was a lawful order  which, we think, it was, as in our opinion the proviso to s. 421 in no  way  offends against the provisions of Art.  14  of  the Constitution.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.                                          Appeal dismissed.                ----------------------------