Case Analysis: The State of Uttar Pradesh vs Shankar and Another
Case Details
Case name: The State of Uttar Pradesh vs Shankar and Another
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: J.L. Kapur, K.C. Das Gupta, Raghubar Dayal
Date of decision: 15 February 1962
Citation / citations: 1962 AIR 1154; 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 213
Case number / petition number: Cr. A. No. 206/1960; Criminal Revision No. 179 of 1959
Proceeding type: Special Leave Petition
Source court or forum: Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
The prosecution alleged that the first respondent, Shankar, attempted to procure illicit intimacy with Mst. Mithana, who refused his advances. In retaliation, Shankar cut off Mithana’s nose on 28 January 1959. The second respondent, Goberdhan, was alleged to have assisted Shankar and to have caught Mithana while Shankar was committing the assault.
Both respondents were tried before a first‑class Magistrate under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate found them guilty and sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months.
An appeal was taken to the Sessions Judge, Sitapur. On 12 June 1959 the Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and directed that the case be committed to a Court of Session for trial. The Magistrate complied on 15 July 1959 and committed the respondents to the Court of Session.
The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a revision before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) challenging the Sessions Judge’s order. The High Court held that a Sessions Judge hearing an appeal against conviction possessed no power to order commitment for trial to a Court of Session and could only recommend enhancement of the sentence. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Sessions Judge’s order, allowed the revision, and directed that the appeal be reheard on its merits.
The State then filed a Special Leave Petition (Cr. A. No. 206/1960) before this Court, seeking relief against the High Court’s judgment and order dated 11 September 1959. An application under Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code for a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution was also made to the High Court, which declined to grant it. The respondents did not appear before this Court.
Issues, Contentions and Controversy
The Court was called upon to determine whether, under Section 423(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, an appellate court hearing an appeal against conviction possessed the authority to order that an accused be committed for trial to a Court of Session. The controversy centred on two conflicting interpretations of the provision:
State’s contention – The State argued that the language of Section 423(1)(b) was clear and unqualified, empowering the appellate court to order commitment for trial irrespective of whether the offence was exclusively triable by a Court of Session. It relied on earlier decisions such as Queen Empress v. Abdul Rahiman and Queen Empress v. Maula Baksh, which recognised a broader scope for the commitment power.
Respondents’ contention – The respondents contended that a Sessions Judge, while hearing an appeal against conviction, lacked jurisdiction to direct commitment to a Court of Session, and that the High Court’s view, which limited the power to offences exclusively triable by a Session Court, was correct.
The issue therefore required a construction of Section 423(1)(b) to resolve whether the Sessions Judge’s order could be upheld against the High Court’s contrary view.
Statutory Framework and Legal Principles
Section 423(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that an appellate court, when hearing an appeal against conviction, may “order him to be retried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial.” The provision is intended to enable the appellate court to correct errors of jurisdiction or procedural infirmities by directing a fresh trial before a court competent to try the offence.
Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with the power to grant a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution; however, the present appeal did not require a determination on that point.
Section 106(3) of the Code imposes a limitation that any order under Section 423(1)(b) must be consistent with the provisions governing enhancement of sentences.
Judicial precedents, notably Queen Empress v. Abdul Rahiman, Queen Empress v. Maula Baksh, Queen Empress v. Sukha, and Satish Chander Das Bose v. Queen Empress, had interpreted Section 423(1)(b) as conferring a broad commitment power on appellate courts, not limited to offences exclusively triable by a Session Court.
Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law
The Court applied a literal, plain‑meaning approach to the wording of Section 423(1)(b). It held that the phrase “order him to be retried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial” was “quite clear” and did not contain any limitation to offences that were exclusively triable by a Court of Session.
By examining the ordinary grammatical meaning of the words, the Court concluded that the provision empowered the appellate court to direct commitment for trial to any court of competent jurisdiction, including a Court of Session, whenever the appellate court deemed it necessary. The Court rejected the High Court’s restrictive construction, finding it inconsistent with the plain language of the statute and with the earlier authorities that had adopted a broader interpretation.
Applying this interpretation to the facts, the Court observed that the Sessions Judge had lawfully exercised the power conferred by Section 423(1)(b) when he set aside the conviction and ordered commitment to the Court of Session. Consequently, the High Court’s order setting aside the Sessions Judge’s direction was erroneous.
Final Relief and Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court, and restored the order of the Sessions Judge directing that the respondents be committed for trial before the Court of Session. In doing so, the Court affirmed that Section 423(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code authorises an appellate court to order commitment for trial to a Court of Session, and that such power is not confined to offences exclusively triable by that court.