Case Analysis: Narain Das vs The State of Uttar Pradesh

Case Details

Case name: Narain Das vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Raghubar Dayal J.
Date of decision: 14 September 1960
Citation / citations: [1954] S.C.R. 1144
Proceeding type: Memorandum of appeal under Section 476B of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Source court or forum: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Source Judgment: Read judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

Narain Das had instituted a civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. He subsequently moved an application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to lodge a complaint under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against Phanish Tripathi, alleging that a statement in Tripathi’s affidavit dated 14 May 1959 was false. A single Judge of the Allahabad High Court examined the application, held that Das had not demonstrated any falsity in the affidavit, and dismissed the application.

Dissatisfied with that order, Das filed a memorandum of appeal under section 476B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that the appeal lay before the Supreme Court of India. The appeal was presented before the Supreme Court, which was required to determine whether the memorandum was competent before it or whether jurisdiction lay with the Allahabad High Court.

Issues, Contentions and Controversy

The Court was called upon to decide three inter‑related questions:

(i) Whether a memorandum of appeal filed under section 476B was maintainable before the Supreme Court of India.

(ii) Which Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order of a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court made under section 476.

(iii) Whether the order of the single Judge constituted a “decree” for the purpose of section 195(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which determines the court deemed subordinate for appellate purposes.

The appellant, Narain Das, argued that the order did not amount to a decree and that, relying on M. S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, the appeal under section 476B should lie directly before the Supreme Court. The respondent, the State of Uttar Pradesh, contended that section 195(3) and the Letters Patent of the Allahabad High Court made the High Court itself the appropriate forum for the appeal, and that the appellant’s reliance on the earlier decision was misplaced because that case involved a Division Bench, not a single Judge.

Statutory Framework and Legal Principles

The Court considered the following statutory provisions:

• Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – authorises a court to order an inquiry into offences affecting the administration of justice.
• Section 476B of the Code of Criminal Procedure – provides a right of appeal against an order made under section 476.
• Section 195(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure – stipulates that an appeal under section 476B must be made to the court deemed subordinate to the court whose order is appealed.
• Sections 195(1)(b) and (c) of the Indian Penal Code – define the offences that may be investigated under section 476.
• Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code – penalises false statements in affidavits.
• Article 226 of the Constitution – under which the original civil writ petition was filed.
• Article 132 of the Constitution – which allows a High Court to certify a substantial question of law for appeal to the Supreme Court.
• Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Allahabad High Court and clause 13 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 – prescribe the ordinary appellate jurisdiction of a single Judge of that High Court.

The legal principle derived from section 195(3) is that an appeal must be filed in the court to which the originating court is ordinarily subordinate. For a single Judge of a High Court, the ordinary appellate forum is the High Court itself, as reflected in the Letters Patent.

Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law

The Court applied the “ordinary appellate jurisdiction” test mandated by section 195(3). It examined whether the order of the single Judge of the Allahabad High Court qualified as a decree for which the appellate route was prescribed. The Court held that, irrespective of the label attached to the order, the statutory scheme required that an appeal under section 476B be made to the court deemed subordinate to the originating court.

Reference to clause 10 of the Letters Patent showed that a decree or order of a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court was ordinarily appealable to the High Court itself. Consequently, the Court concluded that the memorandum of appeal under section 476B was not maintainable before the Supreme Court.

The Court distinguished M. S. Sheriff v. State of Madras on the ground that the earlier decision dealt with an appeal from a Division Bench of a High Court, whereas the present appeal arose from a single Judge. The distinction reinforced the view that the appellate forum for the present order was the Allahabad High Court.

Having resolved the jurisdictional issue, the Court found that the memorandum of appeal was incompetent before it and should be returned to the appropriate lower court.

Final Relief and Conclusion

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the memorandum of appeal and ordered that it be returned to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. It declared that the appeal under section 476B did not lie before the Supreme Court and that the proper forum for the appeal was the Allahabad High Court. No determination was made on the substantive merits of the alleged false statement in the affidavit or on the underlying complaint under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.