- (1.) IN this petition for leave to appeal from an order of acquittal the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an objection that the court fee demanded under the office report of 2nd September, 1951 is improper. The office on the objection taken by the counsel for the petitioner listed the case for rejection in court as the deficiency was not made good After the case was heard on 23 September, 1958 by a Division Bench of this Court, notice was issued to the Government Advocate and the case was ordered to be listed again for orders.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel of the petitioner. The facts on the basis of which the office submitted its report may be stated thus. A copy of the judgment of the trial court was filed with the petition for leave to appeal and the office required the petitioner to put court fee in stamps in accordance with the rate given in Schedule 1 Article 9 namely at the rate of eight annas for every 360 words. The petitioner only paid a fee of eight annas in accordance with it and stated that that was the practice in vogue at Jodhpur since long. According to the office report, the petitioner was liable to pay according to the rate provided in r. 9 Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act a further sum of Rs. 4/- in addition to what was already paid. Learned counsel of the petitioner has urged that r. 9 would not apply to a copy of judgment in a criminal case for the reason that such a judgment would be governed by r. 6 of Schedule 1 in which fee is provided only for copies of judgment in civil cases and no fee is provided by the case of judgment of a criminal court. The logic of the argument is that since the first column of r. 6 is wide enough to cover the case of a judgment of criminal court, r. 6 should be taken to govern such cases as well and as no fee is provided in r. 6 for copies of judgments in criminal cases the intention of the Legislature should be to exempt payment of court fee on copies of criminal judgment. Mr. Kan Singh for the State on the other hand has contended that the language of column 1 of r. 9 of Schedule 1 should be taken to mean that the Article applies to all those cases where there is no provision for payment of fee in any other Article of Schedule 1. He has also urged that the language of column 1 of r. 6 should be interpreted with reference to what has been stated in col. 2 thereof and it cannot be interpreted independent of it. In this way it is urged that r. 6 has no application to a copy of the judgment of a criminal court and the only Article which applies to it is Art. 9. It is thus argued that the petitioner is liable to pay a fee of Rs. 4/- as demanded by the office in this particular case. We reproduce the language of both Arts. 6 and 9 below: - Art. 6. Copy of translation of a judgment of order not being, or having the force of, a decree. When such judgment or order is passed by any civil court other than a High Court, or by the presiding officer of any revenue court or office, or by any judicial or executive authority - (a) If the amount or value of the subject matter is fifty or less than fifty rupees. (b) If the amount or value exceeds fifty rupees, When such judgment or order is passed by a High Court, Four Annas Eight Annas One Rupees Art. 9. Copy of any revenue or judicial proceeding or order not otherwise provided for by this Act, or copy of any account, statement, report or the like, taken out of any civil or criminal or revenue court or office, or from the office of any chief officer charged with the executive administration of a division. For every three hundred and sixty words or fraction of three hundred and sixty words, Eight Annas We are inclined to think that what has been urged by Mr. Kan Singh has force in it. We cannot correctly interpret the language used in column 1 of art. 6 without looking to what is stated in column 2 thereof. The language of column 2 makes it abundantly clear that intention of the Legislature is to make a provision in Art. 6 for payment of fees on copies of civil or revenue courts or the High Court. Though the language used in column 1 does not limit the scope of Art. 6 to judgments of civil or revenue courts or the High Court yet the details given in column 2 of Art. 6 leave no room for doubt that Art. 6 was intended to apply to the judgments of the court specified in column 2 only. Had it been the intention of the Legislature that no fees were to be required to be paid in cases of judgments of the criminal courts, some express provision would have been made about it in Schedule 1. Art. 9 is a residuary article and when there is no provision in Schedule 1 for payment of any fees, this article would apply. Since we do not find any other provision in Schedule 1 for payment of fees on copies of judgments of the criminal courts, we are inclined to think that Art. 9 is applicable to such cases. The office report, under these circumstances appears to be quite proper and the petitioner should comply with it. He is now allowed a week's time to do so failing which the petition shall be listed for rejection. . ;