G.S. Shekhar vs The State of Himachal Pradesh

D.B. Lal, J.—This is an application under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India for grant of a certificate of fitness for appeal to Supreme Court. The facts of the case in brief are that a criminal case was instituted against one Shri R.S. Rana, Horticultural Officer for having committed offences which were classified under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. In that criminal case the Petitioner G.S. Shekhar was produced as P.W. 13 but the learned Magistrate disbelieved him and made certain remarks in the judgment for which an application was made to the High Court u/s 561-A of the then Code of Criminal Procedure for expunction of such remarks. The matter was considered by this Court and on August 12, 1975 the application by Shri G.S. Shekhar was dismissed. Now he wants to go in appeal against that decision to the Supreme Court.

In his application for leave to appeal, the Petitioner avers that the High Court did not consider the original record but perused the judgment of the trial Magistrate and held that the remarks were not uncalled for or unnecessary for decision of the case, that the impugned remarks were based on extraneous considerations and that they were wholly unjustified "for reasons to be stated". It is further submitted that these remarks would prejudice the case of the applicant for future promotion and that a principle of natural justice was violated because he was not given an opportunity of being heard and the remarks were made by the Magistrate. It is casually mentioned that Article 311 of the Constitution is to be interpreted for making an order for expunction of remarks or otherwise as the case may be.

The grant of a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) is not a matter of course but the power has to be exercised after considering what difficult questions of law or principles are involved in the case so that a further consideration by the Supreme Court is necessary. The word "certifies" in sub-article (1)(c) is a strong word which requires the High Court to look closely into the case to see if any special consideration arises. After hearing the learned Counsel I am of the opinion that no such special consideration arises in the present case and hence the application must be dismissed.

It has to be understood that this Court will not grant a certificate of fitness merely because the finding arrived at by the Court is erroneous according to the estimate made by the applicant. That would be the function of the appellate Court. The main question for decision is, as to whether an important question of law is involved which is unsettled and the Supreme Court may be asked to decide the controversy as to that question of law. It has further to be considered if the question is of general importance and is of frequent occurrence so that the Supreme Court may be called upon to give a finding on that question. It would be again a matter for consideration if the judicial decisions are at variance to each other on such a question of law and the difficulty is to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In my opinion, no such feature can be pointed out in respect of the present case. The law as to expunction of remarks is laid down by the Supreme Court in The The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Naim, and R.K. Lakshmanan Vs. A.K. Srinivasan and Another, . Therefore, the decision of the High Court may be right or wrong, a fresh decision by the Supreme Court is not needed on that ground. Whatever reasons have been pointed out by the applicant, all relate to his plea that the decision arrived at is incorrect. That may be so but that would not be a ground to grant a certificate of fitness for appeal.

In fact these very grounds were alleged before the High Court at the time the application was moved for expunction of remarks. The decision has been against the applicant and in my opinion the said decision does not involve a question of law which need be decided afresh by the Supreme Court. The case does not assume any general importance. The law on the subject is well settled.

On these grounds I do not find any justification for granting a certificate of fitness for appeal and the application is dismissed.