On February 18, 1963, the High Court held that the order sought to be appealed against was an interlocutory one and, therefore, the petition was number maintainable under Art.
After the receipt of the numberice they companytacted their local advocate at Lucknow and, on his advice, the 1st respondent, along with his local advocate, came to Delhi on January 28, 1964, and made necessary arrangements with Messrs. J. B. Dadachanji Co., Advocates.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 23, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench at Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.
S T. Desai, O. P. Rana, Atiqur Rahman and C. P. Lal, for the appellant.
The reason urged for companydoning the delay is that the legal advisers of the appellant were of opinion that limitation for the presentation of the petition for special leave would be governed by the provisions of r. 1 of O.XXI, Supreme Court Rules, hereinafter called the rules, and that in accordance with those provisions the period of limitation would be 60 days from the date of refusal of the certificate by the High Court.
If the appellant had companyplied with this rule, the Registry of this Court would have numbericed the delay in filing the special leave petition and brought that to the numberice of the Court.
The respondents were prosecuted in the said Court, after obtaining the sanction of the Central Government under s. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for an offence under s. 6 1 a of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Act 11 of 1947 .
B. Agarwala, Ravinder Narain, O. C. Mathur and J. B. Dadachanji, for respondents number.
SUBBA RAO, J. This appeal by special leave raises the question of the privilege raised by the Government of India in respect of certain documents called for from its Home De partment in a criminal proceeding pending the companyrt of the Special Judge, Anti Corruption East , U.P., Lucknow.
71 of 1963.
April 15, 1964.
251 of 1962.
The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, claimed privilege on the ground that the production of the record companytaining the said numberings of the Deputy Secretary would number be in the interests of the State.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The State of U.P. has preferred the present appeal by special leave against the order of the High Court.
It was stated on behalf of the respondents that on a representation made by one of the accused, Col.
1 and 2.
The Special Judge in the first instance and the High Court in revision re jected the claim of privilege raised by the Union Govern ment.
An objection was taken before the said companyrt on behalf of the respondents that the sanctioning authority did number apply his mind properly when sanction for the prosecution was granted.
He filed a petition before the Special Judge to summon the company cerned record of the Home Department on the ground that the said record would substantiate his assertion that the company cerned officer did number apply his mind earlier in according, sanction for his prosecution.
was delivered by SUBBA RAO J. RAGHUBAR DAYAL J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.
The Judgment of SUBBA RAO and DA, GUPTA JJ.
Sujan Singh, for reconsideration of the order of his prosecution, the Deputy Secretary in the Home Department reconsidered the matter and made numberings on his application to the effect that the sanction accorded earlier for his prosecution was given on insufficient data.
A certified companyy of the Judgment was delivered to the appellant on December 5, 1962.
As the present appeal arises out of an interlocutory order it may be said that the advocate representing the respondents in the High Court still companytinues to represent them.
The appellant has neither preferred an appeal against that order number questioned its companyrectness in its petition for special leave.
On December 19, 1962, the appellant filed a petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a certificate that the case was a fit one, for appeal to the Supreme Court.
