S. R. Das, C. J. - (1.) The respondents before us were put up for trial for offences under Ss. 147, 302, 325 and 326, Indian Penal code read with S. 149 of the same Code. On July 24, 1953, the temporary Civil Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, acquitted them. The State of Uttar Pradesh apparently felt aggrieved by this acquittal and intended to appeal to the High Court under S. 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Under Art. 157 of the Indian Limitation Act an appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure from an order of acquittal is required to be filed within six months from the date of the order appealed from. The period of limitation for appealing from the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge on July 24, 1953, therefore, expired on January 24, 1954. That day being a Sunday the Deputy Government Advocate on January 25, 1954, filed a petition of appeal on behalf of that State. A plain copy of the judgment sought to be appealed from was filed with that petition. The High Court office immediately made a note that the copy of the judgment filed along with the petition of appeal did not appear to be a certified copy. After the judicial records of the case had been received by the High Court, an application for a certified copy of the judgment of the trial Court was made on behalf of the State on February 12, 1954. The certified copy was received by the Deputy Government Advocate on February 23, 1954 and he presented it before the High Court on February 25, 1954 when Harish Chandra, J., made an order that the certified copy be accepted and that there days' further time be granted to the appellant for making an application under S. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay in the filing of the certified copy. Accordingly an application for the condonation 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.
(2.) The application came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of M. C. Desai and N. U. Beg, JJ. At the hearing of that application learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that as there was, in the circumstances of this case, sufficient cause for not filing the certified copy along with the petition of appeal the delay should be condoned and that, in any event, the filing of the plain copy of the judgment of the trial Court along with the petition of appeal constituted a sufficient compliance with the requirements of S. 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By their judgment delivered on December 7, 1954, both the learned Judges took the view that no case had been made out for extending the period of limitation under S. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and dismissed the application and nothing further need be said on that point. The learned Judges, however differed on the question as to whether the filing of a plain copy of the judgment appealed from was a sufficient compliance with the law. M.C. Desai J., holding that it was and N. U. Beg, J., taking the contrary view. The two Judges having differed they directed the case to be laid before the Chief Justice for obtaining a third Judge's opinion on that question. Raghubar Dayal, J., to whom the matter was referred, by his judgment dated January 31, 1955, expressed the opinion that the word "copy" in S. 419 meant a certified copy, and directed his opinion to be laid before the Division Bench. In view of the opinion of the third Judge, the Division Bench held that the memorandum of appeal had not been accompanied by "a copy" within the meaning of S. 419 and that on February 25, 1954 when a certified copy 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. The learned Judges, however, by the same order gave the appellant a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court. Hence this appeal.
(3.) Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which the appeal was filed, provides as follows: "419. Every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his pleader, and every such petition shall (unless the Court to which it is presented otherwise directs) be accompanied by a copy of the judgment or order appealed against, and, in cases tried by a jury, a copy of the heads of the charge recorded under S. 367." The sole question raised in this appeal is whether this section requires a petition of appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from. It will be noticed that the section requires "a copy" of the judgment to be filed along with the petition of appeal. There can be no doubt that the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word "copy" is a reproduction or transcription of an original writing. As the section does not, in terms, require a certified copy, it is urged on behalf of the appellant that the word "copy" with reference to a document has only one ordinary meaning, namely:a transcript or reproduction of the original document and that there being nothing uncertain or ambiguous about the word "copy", no question of construction or interpretation of the section can at all arise. It is contended that it is the duty of the Court to apply its aforesaid ordinary and grammatical meaning to the word "copy" appearing in S. 419 and that it should be held that the filing of a plain copy of the judgment along with the petition of appeal was a sufficient compliance with the requirements of that section. The matter, however, does not appear to us to be quite so simple. A "copy" may be a plain copy, i.e., an unofficial copy, or a certified copy i.e., an official copy. If a certified copy of the judgment is annexed to the petition of appeal nobody can say that the requirements of S. 419 have not been complied with, for a certified copy is nontheless a "copy". That being the position a question of construction does arise as to whether the word "copy" used in S. 419 refers to a plain copy or to a certified copy or covers both varieties of copy. It is well settled that "the words of a statute, when there is doubt about their meaning, are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject of the enactment and the object which the Legislature has in view. Their meaning is found not so much in a strictly grammatical or etymological propriety of language, nor even in its popular use, as in the subject or in the occasion on which they are used, and the object to be attained." (Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edition page 52). In order, therefore, to come to a decision as to the true meaning of a word used in a Statute one has to enquire as to the subject-matter of the enactment and the object which the Legislature had in view. This leads us to a consideration of some of the relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other enactments having a material bearing on the question before us.;