Case Analysis: Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee vs The State Of Bihar
Case Details
Case name: Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee vs The State Of Bihar
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: K. Subba Rao, P.B. Gajendragadkar
Date of decision: 6 October 1959
Citation / citations: James Paul Alexander v. James Arthur Edwards [I.L.R. 1953 T.C. 69]; Coltness Iron Company v. Black [(1880-81) 6 A.C. 315, 330]
Case number / petition number: Criminal Revision Application No. 924 of 1957
Proceeding type: Appeal by certificate
Source court or forum: Patna High Court
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
The proceeding was instituted against Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the First Class Magistrate at Bhagalpur, who directed him to execute a bond of Rs 5,000 with two sureties for the preservation of peace for one year. The appellant challenged this order before the Additional Session Judge at Bhagalpur; the judge affirmed the magistrate’s order and dismissed the appeal.
Subsequently, the appellant filed Criminal Revision Application No. 924 of 1957 before the Patna High Court. He attached certified copies of the magistrate’s order and the Additional Session Judge’s order but did not affix any court fee. The stamp reporter demanded payment of court fees of Rs 52.75 for one copy and Rs 50.75 for the other. The High Court held that the demand was consistent with its established practice and ordered the appellant to affix the requisite stamps within two weeks.
The appellant obtained a certificate under article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, indicating that his case was fit for appeal to the Supreme Court of India. Acting on that certificate, he appealed by certificate, raising the question of the construction of Article 9 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Issues, Contentions and Controversy
The Court was asked to determine whether the certified copies of the orders passed by the First Class Magistrate and the Additional Session Judge, which had been filed with the revision application, were chargeable with court fees under Article 9 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
The appellant contended that the policy embodied in the Code of Criminal Procedure— which mandates that copies of reports, charges, judgments and other documents be furnished to the accused free of cost— should exempt the certified copies from the fee prescribed by Article 9. He further argued that a liberal construction of Article 9 was appropriate and that no document should be deemed chargeable unless it fell unmistakably within the categories enumerated in the First or Second Schedule of the Act.
The State of Bihar maintained that the language of Article 9 was plain and unambiguous, expressly covering “a copy of any statement, report or the like taken out of a criminal court,” and that the orders in question fell squarely within that provision. It submitted that policy considerations under the Code of Criminal Procedure were irrelevant to the construction of the Court Fees Act.
Statutory Framework and Legal Principles
Article 9 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, 1870 prescribed a fee for a copy of any “statement, report or the like” taken out of a civil, criminal or revenue court or office. Section 4 of the same Act required that no document listed in the First or Second Schedule could be filed, exhibited, recorded, received or furnished unless the prescribed fee was paid.
Section 4(m) of the Code of Criminal Procedure defined a “judicial proceeding” as including any proceeding in which evidence could be legally taken on oath, thereby bringing the orders passed under section 107 within the meaning of a judicial proceeding.
Several provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (sections 173(4), 207A(3), 210(2), 251A(1), 317(1) and the proviso to section 548) mandated that copies of reports, FIRs, charges, judgments and other records be supplied to the accused without cost. However, these provisions dealt with the supply of copies directly to the accused and did not expressly address the requirement of court fees on copies filed before a higher court.
The Court applied the plain‑meaning rule and the “fair and reasonable construction” test, observing that liberal construction is unavailable where the statutory language admits only one reasonable meaning. The Court also referred to the principles articulated in James Paul Alexander v. James Arthur Edwards and Coltness Iron Company v. Black as persuasive authority on the interpretation of fee provisions.
Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law
The Court held that the construction of Article 9 must be based on its plain language rather than on any policy considerations emanating from the Code of Criminal Procedure. It observed that Article 9 expressly covered “a copy of any … statement, report or the like taken out of a criminal court,” and that the orders passed under section 107 were judicial proceedings within the meaning of section 4(m) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court found that the copies of the magistrate’s bond order and the Additional Session Judge’s order were not among the categories excluded by Article 6 or Article 7 of Schedule I, and therefore fell within the ambit of Article 9. Consequently, the fee of Rs 52.75 and Rs 50.75 prescribed by Article 9 was applicable to the two certified copies.
The appellant’s argument that the policy of free supply of documents to the accused should exempt the copies was rejected as irrelevant to the interpretation of the Court Fees Act. Likewise, the contention that a liberal construction in favour of the litigant was appropriate was dismissed because the language of Article 9 was clear, unambiguous and admitted only a single meaning.
Having found that the High Court’s practice of requiring payment of the fee was fully justified by the statutory provisions, the Court affirmed the High Court’s order.
Final Relief and Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and refused the relief sought by the appellant. It upheld the Patna High Court’s order directing the appellant to pay the court fees prescribed under Article 9 of the Court Fees Act for the certified copies of the criminal orders. The judgment affirmed that certified copies of orders or judgments issued in criminal proceedings are chargeable with court fees under Article 9, and that the High Court’s requirement of payment of such fees was legally justified.