AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.—The four accused were charged before the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad, viz., the third with an offence u/s 494, Indian Penal Code, and the other three accused with abetting that offence. The Sessions Judge agreeing with the assessors acquitted all the accused.
This is an application by the complainant to the High Court to interfere under its revisional powers. We have been referred to a decision in Ahmedabad Municipality v. Maganlal(1906) 9 Bom. L.R. 156 in which Mr. Justice Batty said :
Although this Court does not ordinarily interfere with orders of acquittal in revision, yet it cannot be expected that it would hesitate to do as where the acquittal is based not upon an Appreciation of doubtful evidence, but upon a manifest error in law appearing on the face of the judgment.
The order of acquittal in that case was passed by a First Class Honorary Magistrate, and it constitutes a material difference that the present case was tried by a Sessions Judge sitting with assessors. Speaking for myself, if in such a case Government do not exercise their right of asking us to admit an appeal from the order of acquittal, find it difficult to imagine any circumstances which would justify this Court in interfering in revision ac the instance of the complainant.
Crump, J.
I agree. This is not a case in which we ought to interfere in the exercise of our powers in revision. It would perhaps, in my opinion, be difficult to lay down any general rule, but it is, I think, at all events, safe to say that after regular trial in the Sessions Court, it would be only in the most exceptional cases that this Court would be justified in interfering u/s 439 when there is no appeal by the Local Government u/s 417, Criminal Procedure Code.