D. Venkata Ranga Reddy v. A. Subhascbandra Bose — 1972 DIGILAW 704 (MAD)

Order.- This is an application for the grant of a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court of India under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India, against my order, dated 29th August, 1972 in Crl.M.P. No. 1695 of 1972. The relevant facts for the disposal of this application are as follows. 2. The petitioner herein, D. Venkata Ranga Reddy, filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Anantapur, against the 1st respondent herein and three other Sub-Inspectors of Police for offences under sections 166, 202, 330, 365, 367, 368 and 324, read with sections 109, 114 and 34, Indian Penal Code. This complaint was registered as P.R.C. No. 19 of 1971. One of the Sub-Inspectors named S.K. John (accused in P.R.C. No. 19 of 1971) also filed a charge-sheet against D. Venkata Ranga Reddy, in the Court of the same Magistrate on 17th December, 1971, under sections 353, 211, 212 and 224, Indian Penal Code, read with section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh District Police Act. On that very day i.e., 17th December, 1971, one S.G. Manirathnam, Inspector of Police, Ananthapur filed a memo., requesting the Court to return the charge-sheet. The learned Magistrate passed an order to return the charge-sheet to the police authorities. 3. A. Subhash Chandra Bose, another accused in P.R.C. No. 19 of 1971 filed a petition, Crl.M.P.No. 1965 of 1972 under section 461-A, Criminal. Procedure Code, in this Court to quash the order of the Magistrate directing return of the charge-sheet. In this proceeding, the petitioner herein (who is the accused in the said charge-sheet which was directed to be returned) was made a party. After hearing the arguments of both the Counsels for the parties and the Public Prosecutor, this Court quashed the order of the Magistrate directing return of the charge-sheet to the police authorities on the ground that once the charge-sheet is received by the Court, inasmuch as there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, empowering a Magistrate to return the charge-sheet to the police authorities, the Magistrate has to proceed with it in accordance with the provisions of the Cade. Aggrieved by the said order of this Court, the petitioner herein who is the accused in the said charge-sheet, has preferred this application for the grant of a certificate under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court, Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution requires that the order of the High Court sought to be appealed against, should be a final order in a criminal proceeding, and the case should be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court and the High Courts in various decisions have laid down a number of tests to ascertain whether an order is final or not. The question has to be considered in its two aspects viz.: (1) the nature of proceeding before the High Court; and (2) the nature of the order made in the proceeding. The Supreme Court has held in Ramesh v. Gendalal Motilal Patni1, that if the proceeding before the High Court is an independent proceeding such as an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, independent of the original controversy between the parties, the finality or otherwise of the order made therein cannot be judged with reference to its effect on the original controversy between the parties as against which the writ is filed. In other words, the order would be final as regards the question decided irrespective of the fact that the controversy before the inferior tribunal is still alive. But if the order of the High Court is made in a proceeding like revision or appeal which should be considered as a continuation of the original controversy, the finality of the order must be judged in relation to the effect of the order on the original controversy between the parties. If the original controversy is still alive and awaited decision, the order cannot be considered final. That brings the second aspect into consideration. If the proceeding before the High Court is not an independent proceeding but a proceeding in the nature of a revision or appeal or one in continuation of the original proceeding, the nature of the order should be such that it determines the controversy in question, vide Mohanlal v. State of Gujarat2. 4. The present proceeding before this Court is a petition under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code. 4. The present proceeding before this Court is a petition under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code. It is a proceeding in continuation of the original proceeding before the Magistrate, both proceedings being governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proceeding is against the order of the Magistrate directing return of the charge-sheet on the basis of a memo, filed by a police officer who had not investigated the case. In such circumstances, the question as to the finality of the order of this Court must be judged in relation to its effect on the controversy between the parties before the Magistrate. The order of this Court did not determine any question be;ween the parties before the Magistrate. It has merely declared the action of the Magistrate in returning the charge-sheet as illegal and directed him to proceed according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since it is an order in the nature of remind, it cannot be considered a final order. I am fortified in my view by a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Durga Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, which has been approved by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal v. State of Gujarat2. 5. The next question which falls for determination is whether the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. In the order in question, it was held that the Magistrate did not act within his jurisdiction in direction return of the charge-sheet, and that his order was in violation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is not a substantial question of law nor is it a question involving a decision on principle. Hence I do not see any reason to grant a certificate under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution. 6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. A.B.K. ------- Petition dismissed.