AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.—It has been held in Tanguturi Sriramulu v. Nalam, Krishna Row 25 Ind. Cas. 1001; 16 M.L.T. 303; (1914) M.W.N. 646; 27 M.L.J. 589 that the recommencement of a trial u/s 350, Criminal Procedure Code, does not imply the cancellation of a charge already-framed and that an order passed subsequently is one of acquittal and not discharge. The case should, therefore, be treated as a revision against an acquittal.
Though the High Court has power to interfere on revision, the power will only be exercised when the order of acquittal has resulted in grave injustice. I have dealt with the matter fully in Vellayanambalam v. Solai Servai 30 Ind. Cas. 152; (1915) M.W.N. 540; 28 M.L.J. 692.
I see no grounds for interference in this case. The Magistrate did not believe the prosecution evidence and was of opinion that there was considerable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
The petition is dismissed.