# 875STATE OF GUJARAT v. RAMPRAKASH P. PURI AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1970] 2 S.C.R. 875
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970
- **Bench:** V. Ramaswam!, I. D. Dua
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/875state-of-gujarat-v-ramprakash-p-puri-and-ors-4957
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898) '. "" 417, 419;-Bombay
l/igh Court Appellate Side Rules. 1960 (a• applicable I~ Gu1arat H111h·
Court), r. &-Rule al/owing joint appet.:.l by persons aggr1eved by sa111e
judg1nent-Joint appeal by State against acq11ittal of several persons a/lei ..
t1 joint trial 11•hether 1i/£;intc.inab.le.
The relipondcnts were trieJ jointl¥ _and acquitted. by a c~mmo°: jud~·
n1cnt.
The State of Gujarat filed a 101nt appeal against their a~qu1ttal in.
the High Court. Rule 6 ol the Bombay High Court _Appellate Side Rules.
J 960 (which we're applicable to tho proceedings. Ill the Guiarat High
Court) provided for joint appeals by persons aggrieved by
a _common
judgment or ordt!r. There was howe\'cr ?? .rule spcclfically pro~1d1ng for
~imilar joint appeals by the State.
A D1v1s1~n Bench of the High Court
Ji1'missed the joint appeal by the State against the respondents on the
ground that suc!l an appeal \\.-as not maintainabl~. The D.ivision Bene~.
held that the decision by a Full Bench of the Htgh Court m La/u Ida s
,·ase in which a contrary ·~tiew had been taken, was not b1n<l1ng on the·
Division Bench.
Jn appeal to this Court against the judgment of the
Division~ Bench.
HELD : (i) The Division Bench was in error in not treating as binding the earlier decision of a Full Bench of the same court on the same
question. 1877 A-Fl
Mahadeolal Kanodia v. The Adn1inistrator Getien;.l of West Bengal,
11960] 3 S.C.R. 578, Jai KGur & Or.<. v. Sher SinRh etc. (1960] J S.C.R.
975, Atma Ram v. State of Punjab & Ors.
[1959] I S.C.R. 748. Jaisri
.fohu v. Raj Dewan, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 558 and Bur/ha Singh v. Laltu Singh,
I.LR. 37 All. 604 (P.C.), applied.
(ii) Rule 6 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules does not
in terms cover the c.ise of an appeal by the State against several accused
persons jointly tried and acquitted by the trial court by a common order,
hut if an appeal by persons jo_intly tried and convicted is competent, then
on J*inciple it is difficult to negative the maintainability of one appeal hy
the State against a common order ac(iuitting several persons tried jointly.
Like all rules of procedure this rule demands a construction which would'
promote lhe cause of justice and not obstruct it. [878 D-F]
A joint appeal by the State against seve·ral accuc;ed person<; acquit!cd
at a joint trial is not contra.Ty to any provision of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and is therefore not legally prohibited. Sections 258, 410. 417,
419 or 423 of the Code do not indicate anv har as was wgge•tcd by the
order of the High Court. Indeed the plain reading of s. 417 which pro-
'·idcs for ary ·appeal in a case an<l not against an accused person, seems
to be wide enough to permit a joint appc:ll. The
matter being: on~ of
mere form it calls for a liberal aporoach requiring the appeal to be heard
on its merits.
The order of the High Court mu•t accordingly be
set
a.ide. [878 G-H; 879 C-F]
876
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
Rabari Ghelo Jadav
v.
State of Bomba,v, A.LR. 1960 S.C. 748,
-explained.
Lalu le/a v. Stnte of Gujarat, A.LR. 1962 Guj. 125, approved.
CllIM'INAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos.
60 and 63 of 1965.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated November 20,
1963 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 951
.a:1ld 796 of 1963 respectively.
·
Urmila Kapur and S. P. Nayar, tor the appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
A
B

## Text

A
n
CD
E
H
875STATE OF GUJARAT
v.
RAMPRAKASH P. PURI AND ORS.
October l 6, 1969
(V. RAMASWAM! AND I. D. DUA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898) '. "" 417, 419;-Bombay
l/igh Court Appellate Side Rules. 1960 (a• applicable I~ Gu1arat H111h·
Court), r. &-Rule al/owing joint appet.:.l by persons aggr1eved by sa111e
judg1nent-Joint appeal by State against acq11ittal of several persons a/lei ..
t1 joint trial 11•hether 1i/£;intc.inab.le.
The relipondcnts were trieJ jointl¥ _and acquitted. by a c~mmo°: jud~·
n1cnt.
The State of Gujarat filed a 101nt appeal against their a~qu1ttal in.
the High Court. Rule 6 ol the Bombay High Court _Appellate Side Rules.
J 960 (which we're applicable to tho proceedings. Ill the Guiarat High
Court) provided for joint appeals by persons aggrieved by
a _common
judgment or ordt!r. There was howe\'cr ?? .rule spcclfically pro~1d1ng for
~imilar joint appeals by the State.
A D1v1s1~n Bench of the High Court
Ji1'missed the joint appeal by the State against the respondents on the
ground that suc!l an appeal \\.-as not maintainabl~. The D.ivision Bene~.
held that the decision by a Full Bench of the Htgh Court m La/u Ida s
,·ase in which a contrary ·~tiew had been taken, was not b1n<l1ng on the·
Division Bench.
Jn appeal to this Court against the judgment of the
Division~ Bench.
HELD : (i) The Division Bench was in error in not treating as binding the earlier decision of a Full Bench of the same court on the same
question. 1877 A-Fl
Mahadeolal Kanodia v. The Adn1inistrator Getien;.l of West Bengal,
11960] 3 S.C.R. 578, Jai KGur & Or.<. v. Sher SinRh etc. (1960] J S.C.R.
975, Atma Ram v. State of Punjab & Ors.
[1959] I S.C.R. 748. Jaisri
.fohu v. Raj Dewan, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 558 and Bur/ha Singh v. Laltu Singh,
I.LR. 37 All. 604 (P.C.), applied.
(ii) Rule 6 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules does not
in terms cover the c.ise of an appeal by the State against several accused
persons jointly tried and acquitted by the trial court by a common order,
hut if an appeal by persons jo_intly tried and convicted is competent, then
on J*inciple it is difficult to negative the maintainability of one appeal hy
the State against a common order ac(iuitting several persons tried jointly.
Like all rules of procedure this rule demands a construction which would'
promote lhe cause of justice and not obstruct it. [878 D-F]
A joint appeal by the State against seve·ral accuc;ed person<; acquit!cd
at a joint trial is not contra.Ty to any provision of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and is therefore not legally prohibited. Sections 258, 410. 417,
419 or 423 of the Code do not indicate anv har as was wgge•tcd by the
order of the High Court. Indeed the plain reading of s. 417 which pro-
'·idcs for ary ·appeal in a case an<l not against an accused person, seems
to be wide enough to permit a joint appc:ll. The
matter being: on~ of
mere form it calls for a liberal aporoach requiring the appeal to be heard
on its merits.
The order of the High Court mu•t accordingly be
set
a.ide. [878 G-H; 879 C-F]
876
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
Rabari Ghelo Jadav
v.
State of Bomba,v, A.LR. 1960 S.C. 748,
-explained.
Lalu le/a v. Stnte of Gujarat, A.LR. 1962 Guj. 125, approved.
CllIM'INAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos.
60 and 63 of 1965.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated November 20,
1963 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 951
.a:1ld 796 of 1963 respectively.
·
Urmila Kapur and S. P. Nayar, tor the appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
A
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C
Daa, J. These two criminal appeals (Nos. 60 and 63 of 1965)
-W:ith certificate raise a common question and are, therefore, being
-disposed of by a common judgment. The Gujarat High Court also
•
recorded the main judgment only in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of
1%~
'
• The ques1ion which arises for determination is whether, where
several accused persons jointly tried have been acquitted by the
trial Court, the State can prefer one appeal against the acquittal
of all of them. The High Court held such a joinb appeal not to be
maintainable under Cr. P.C. and so holding rejected the appeal by
the State without going into the merits. The Division Bench of the
High Coun speaking through Raju, J. recorded a very lengthy
order though the reasoning in support of the non-mai~tainability
of the joint appeal is confined to a couple of pages
only.
The High Court in
its order referred to ss. 258,
410, 417,
419 and 423
of the
Code and came to
the conclusion
that the
scheme of
Chapter XXXl of
the Code as disclosed by these sections and particularly by s. 419
is against the maintainability of a joint appeal by the State against
an order acquitting several accused persons tried jointly. Section
419 was construed by the High Court to contain a bar against a
joint appeal. The major portion of the impugned order dealt with
the question of binding character of the Full Bench decision of that
High Court since reported as La/u le/av. State of Gujarat(') on
the Division Bench hearing the present appeals.
After a lengthy
discussion the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the Full
Bench decision holding a joint appeal to be maintainahle in law was
not binding on it.
On the view that we propose to take on the question of ~·
tainability of a joint appeal against a common order acqu1tung
(I) A.J.R. 1962 Guj. 125.
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
GUJARAT v. RAMPRAKASH (Dua, J.)
877
several accused persons tried jointly, we do not consider it necessary
to embark on a lengthy discussion on the question of binding charter of decisions of Full Benches and of Division Benches on future
Benches of co-ordinate jurisdiction of the same High Court. We
may only make a passing reference to the decisions of this Court
cited at the bar in support of such binding character. I.n Mahatfeolal Ranodia v. The Administrator Genual of West Bengal('),
this Court observed as follows :
"We have noticed with some regret that when the earlier decision of two judges of the same High Court in
Beorajan's case was cited before the learned judges who
heard the present agpeal they took on themselves to say
that the previous decision was wrong, instead of following the usual procedure in case of difference of opinion
with an earlier decision, of referring the question to a larger Bench. Judicial decorum no less than legal propriety
forms the basis.of judicial procedure. If one thing is more
necessary in law than any other thing, it is the quality
of certainty. That quality would totally disappear if judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction in a High Court start overruling one another's decision. If one Division Bench of
a High Court is unable to distinguish a previous decision
of another Division Bench and holding the view that the
earlier decision is wrong, itself gives effect to that view,
the result would be utter confusion."
Other decisions cited containing similar observations are : Jai
Kaur and others v. Sher Singh etc.( 2 ) and Atma Ram v. State of
P111tiab and others(6 ). We are aware of a still more recent decision of this Court in Jaisri Sahu v. Ra; Dewan(') in which refacnce is made to a Privy Council decision in Bud ha Singh v.
lAttu Singh('),
The question of competency of a joint appeal by several persons convicted by one order at a joint trial was referred for authoritative decision to a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in
Lrtlu lela's case( 6). The argument before the Full Bench was that
r. 6 in Chapter XXVI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side
Rules (which are applicable to the proceedings in Gujarat High
Court) was inconsistent with Chapter XXXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the result that a joint appeal to the High
Court by several persons convicted at a joint trial was not maintainable. The Full Bench on an exhaustive discussion held such
{I) [1960] 3. S.C.R. 578.
(3) [1959] I S.C.R. 748.
(5) I.L.R .37 All, 604 (P.C.).
(2) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 975.
(4) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 558.
(6) A.T.R. 1962 Gui. 125.
878
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
an appeal to be competent and did not consider r. 6 to be inconA
sistent with Chapter XXXI of the Code. The decision of this Court
in Rabari Ghela Jadav v. State of Bombay(') was explained and
distinguished. If we agree with the principle accepted in the Full
Bench decision then the present appeals would on the reasoning
of that decision seem prima facie to possess merit and in the absence of some other cogent reason to the contrary the appeals would
B
have to succeed.
Chapter XXYI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side
Rules, 1960 deals with "criminal business"' and r. 6 is in the following words :
"Joint app~al or application by persons affected by
the same judgment.
6. All persons aggrieved by a judgment or an order
passed in a criminal case, may join in one appeal or application for revision, and one copy of the judgment or
order complained of shall be sufficient."'
This rule, of course, does not in terms cover the case of an
appeal by the State against several acwsed persons jointly tried
and acquitted by the trial Court by a. common order, but if an
appeal by persons jointly tried and convicted is competent, then on
principle it is difficult to negative the maintainability of one appeal
by the State against a common order acquitting several persons
tried jointly. This rule deals with a matter of procedure and not
of substantive rights and seems to be based on sound commonsense. Proccdu1:e has been described to be a hand-maid and not
a mistress of law, intended to subserve und faciUtate the cause of
justice and not to govern or obstruct it.
Like all rules of procedure, this rule demands a construction which would promote this
cause .. ~o construed a joint appeal, in compliance of this rule must
be sustained.
The power to frame this rule is specifically conferred on the High Court by s. 554(2)(c) Cr. P.C. and r. 6 does
not seem to us to be inconsistent with any provisions of the said
Code. Holding this rule to be valid, in agreement with the decision of the Full Bench, the competency of a joint appeal by several
accused persons convicted at one trial must be upheld. On the
same reasoning a joint appeal by the State against several accuse<!
persons acquitted at a joint trial has als.o to be held not to be contrary to any provision of the Code and therefore not legally prohibited. Section 419 of the Code on which the High Court seems
to have relied in support of the non-maintainability of a joint appeal by the State, Jays down inter alia that every appeal shall be
made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant
--- --··--·- -- -··
(I) A.1.R, 1960 S.C. 748.
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
.-
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
GUJARAT v. RAMPRAKASH (Dua, J.)
879
or his pleader and every such petition shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be accompanied by a copy of the judgment or order
appeakd againot.
This section does not seem to us to prohibit a
joint appeal by the State against more than one accused perso11~.
The contrary view taken by the High Court on the construction of
this section is clearly unacceptable.
Section 417 which provides
for an uppeal in a case of aco_uittal empowers the State Government
to direct the public prosecutor in any case to present an appeal
from an order of acquittal. This section also does not suggest any
bar or prohibition against presentation of a joint appeal agaimt
several accused persons acquitted in a case.
On the other hand.
it provides for an appeal in a case, and not against an accused
person, who has been acquitted. The plain reading of this section.
therefore, seems to he wide enough to permit a joint appeal. Sections 258, 410 and 423 of the Code also do not seem to indicate
any bar as is suggested by the order of the High Court. This Court
in Rabari Ghc/a .Tadav'.1· case(1), on the basis of which the judgment of the High Court mainly proceeds, merely lays down that
the Appellate Court hearing an appeal cannot admit it only on a
question of sentence and ihat such a restricted orJcr of admission
being invalid, the appcilant would be entitled to in>;ist that his
~ppeal should be he,ard on the merits.
This Jccisi0n. in our
opinion, does no~ militate against the maintainability of a joint appeal. The Full Bench <)ecision of the Gujarat High Court rightly
distinguished and explained this decision.
As observed earlier.
once we accept the Full Bench to lay down the corrc;;t ruk of Jaw.
then there cannot be much difficulty in upholding the maintainability of a joint appeal by the State against several accused persons
acquitted at a joint trial.
There being no legal bar (at lcr,sl we
are aware of none either in the Cr. P.C. or elsewhere), such an appeal cannot be held to sufTcr from any serious legal infinnity. And
then the matter being one of mere form it calls for a liberal approach requiring the appeal to be heard on the merits. To hold
it to be unmaintainable on this ground wouM defeat the larger
cause of justice.
Unfortunately, we did not have the advantage
of arguments on behalf of the respondents because they were unrepresented, but on considering the scheme of the relevant p;·ovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we are of the view ;li:.il
the High Court was wrong in holding the joint appeal not t<1 \'C
maintainable and in summarily rejecting the same.
We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside tlw order of tho
High Court and rcr .it the case hack to it for decision of tht· ''ppeal
on the merits.
G.C.
A 11pca/ a/lowed.
(l) A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 748.