in view of the opinion of the third judge the division bench held that the memorandum of appeal had number been accompanied by a companyy within the meaning of s. 419 and that on february 25 1954 when a certified companyy 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.
appeal from the judgment and order dated february 8 1955 of the allahabad high companyrt in government appeal number 165 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and order dated july 24 1953 of the companyrt of the civil and sessions judge at gorakhpur in sessions trial number 5 of 1953.
the certified companyy was received by the deputy government advocate on february 231954 and he presented it before the high companyrt in february 25 1954 when harish chandra j. made an order that the certified companyy be accepted and that three days further time be granted to the appellant for making an application under s. 5 of the indian limitation act for companydoning the delay in the filing of the certified companyy.
that day being a sunday the deputy government advocate on january 25 1954 filed a. petition of appeal on behalf of that state.
accordingly an application for the companydonation 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.
n. andley for the respondents.
hence this appeal.
raghubar dayal j. to whom the matter was referred by his judgment dated january 31 1955 expressed the opinion that the word companyy in s. 419 meant a certified companyy and directed his opinion to be laid before the division bench.
the two judges having differed they directed the case to be laid before the chief justice for obtaining a third judges opinion on that question.
the application came up for hearing before a division bench consisting of m. c. desai and n. u. beg jj.
february 14.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 128 of 1955.
157 of the indian limitation act an appeal under the companye of criminal procedure from an order of acquittal is required to be filed within six months from the date of the order appealed from.
under art.
the learned judges however by the same order gave the appellant a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this companyrt.
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.
the learned judges however differed on the question as to whether the filing of a plain companyy of the judgment appealed from was a sufficient companypliance with the law m. c. desai j. holding that it was and n. u. beg j. taking the companytrary view.
the high companyrt office immediately made a numbere that the companyy of the judgment filed along with the petition of appeal did number appear to be a certified copy.
the following judgment of the companyrt was delivered by das c. j. the respondents before us were put up for trial for offences under ss.
c. mathur and c. p. lal for the appellant.
after the judicial records of the case had been received by the high companyrt an application for a certified copy of the judgment of the trial companyrt was made on behalf of the state on february 12 1954.
by their judgment delivered on december 7 1954 both the learned judges took the view that numbercase had been made out for extending the period of limitation under s. 5 of the indian limitation act and dismissed the application and numberhing further need be said on that point.
a plain companyy of the judgment sought to be appealed from was filed with that petition.
