Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mooratsingh And Ors. on 2 January, 1975

Samual Philipose vs Koshy Thomas on 19 August, 2009

8. Then, could an appeal which is not summarily dismissed under Section 384 of the Code be dismissed for default, as withdrawn or as not pressed without perusing the record of the case and without deciding the appeal on merit? In the wordings of Sections 384 to 386 of the Code, such a course is not permissible. Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for withdrawal or abandonment of a suit and since an appeal is a continuation of the lis, the said provision could apply to appeals from decrees or orders as well. Such an enabling provision is not available in the Code. Section 321 of the Code permits the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case with the consent of the court to withdraw from the prosecution of any person but that power has to be exercised before judgment is pronounced. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered the question whether an appeal against acquittal could be withdrawn by the Public Prosecutor invoking Section 494 (of the old Code corresponding to Section 321 of the Code) treating the appeal as a continuation of the trial. The Division Bench held (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mooratsingh and others - 1975 Cri.L.J. 989) that Section 494 (of the old Code) is available only upto Crl.R.P.Nos.1152,1153 & 1155/2000 & Crl.R.C. Nos.7, 8 and 9/2009 9 the pronouncement of judgment and not when an appeal against acquittal is pending. According to the Division Bench the analogy of the Code of Civil Procedure that an appeal is a continuation of the suit cannot be applied in the case of Criminal Appeals in the absence of provision in the Code like Section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, it was held that invoking Section 494 of the old Code (Section 321 of the present Code) an appeal against acquittal (once it is not summarily dismissed) cannot be withdrawn.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - T Joseph - Full Document

Bineesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2025

3. Sri. Vipin Narayan, the learned Public Prosecutor, points out that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNSS') permitting withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant, except withdrawal by the Public Prosecutor under Section 321 Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 360 of the BNSS. He submits that there are several decisions of the Supreme Court which categorically state that once a criminal appeal is admitted, such an appeal has to be disposed of on its merits, after calling for the records. He refers to the decision of this Court in Samul Philipose v. Koshy Thomas, 2009 (4) KLT 360, and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of M.P. v. Mooratsingh, 1975 KHC 1082. However, he argues that the High Court may, in fit cases, permit withdrawal of an appeal under its inherent powers envisaged under Section 482 Cr.P.C 2025:KER:67733 CRL.A NO. 12 OF 2015 & CRL.A NO. 980 OF 2025 5 corresponding to section 528 of the BNSS to secure the ends of justice. He pointed out that since inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C corresponding to section 528 of the BNSS can be exercised only by the High Court, such withdrawal may not be permissible in the case of an appeal pending before the Sessions Court. In essence, it is his submission that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS are independent and not circumscribed by Section 386 Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 427 of the BNSS. He pointed out that even after a sentence is served and fines are paid, an appeal may be pursued to remove the stigma of conviction or for other reliefs, and under Section 394 of the Cr.P.C. corresponding Section 435 of the BNSS, near relatives may decide to prosecute the appeal or accept the verdict after the death of the accused (in cases involving a sentence of fine).
Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shaji @ Shaiju vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2025

3. Sri. Vipin Narayan, the learned Public Prosecutor, points out that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNSS') permitting withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant, except withdrawal by the Public Prosecutor under Section 321 Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 360 of the BNSS. He submits that there are several decisions of the Supreme Court which categorically state that once a criminal appeal is admitted, such an appeal has to be disposed of on its merits, after calling for the records. He refers to the decision of this Court in Samul Philipose v. Koshy Thomas, 2009 (4) KLT 360, and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of M.P. v. Mooratsingh, 1975 KHC 1082. However, he argues that the High Court may, in fit cases, permit withdrawal of an appeal under its inherent powers envisaged under Section 482 Cr.P.C 2025:KER:67733 CRL.A NO. 12 OF 2015 & CRL.A NO. 980 OF 2025 5 corresponding to section 528 of the BNSS to secure the ends of justice. He pointed out that since inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C corresponding to section 528 of the BNSS can be exercised only by the High Court, such withdrawal may not be permissible in the case of an appeal pending before the Sessions Court. In essence, it is his submission that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS are independent and not circumscribed by Section 386 Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 427 of the BNSS. He pointed out that even after a sentence is served and fines are paid, an appeal may be pursued to remove the stigma of conviction or for other reliefs, and under Section 394 of the Cr.P.C. corresponding Section 435 of the BNSS, near relatives may decide to prosecute the appeal or accept the verdict after the death of the accused (in cases involving a sentence of fine).
Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1