Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.38 seconds)Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mallappa Siddappa Alakanur & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 7 July, 2009
13] In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Mallappa (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the
learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence of the
prosecution and there does not appear to be any infirmity and
illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The
learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this
Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court
was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges
Page 33 of 34
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Sep 04 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 06 22:04:07 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/863/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2024
undefined
leveled against him. The findings recorded by the learned Trial
Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or
infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court and this
Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the
learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with
the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is
devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
Selvaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 18 August, 2015
In
Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka,
"13. Considering the reasons given by the trial Court and on
appraisal of the evidence, in our considered view, the view taken by
the trial Court was a possible one. Thus, the High Court should not
have interfered with the judgment of acquittal.
Jagan M. Seshadri vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2001
This Court in Jagan
M. Seshadri v. State of T.N. [(2002) 9 SCC 639] has laid down that
as the appreciation of evidence made by the trial Court while
recording the acquittal is a reasonable view, it is not permissible to
interfere in appeal. The duty of the High Court while reversing the
acquittal has been dealt with by this Court, thus:
Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 January, 1999
"9. ...We are constrained to observe that the High Court was
dealing with an appeal against acquittal. It was required to
deal with various grounds on which acquittal had been based
and to dispel those grounds. It has not done so. Salutary
principles while dealing with appeal against acquittal have
been overlooked by the High Court. If the appreciation of
evidence by the trial Court did not suffer from any flaw, as
Page 11 of 34
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Sep 04 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 06 22:04:07 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/863/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2024
undefined
indeed none has been pointed out in the impugned judgment,
the order of acquittal could not have been set aside. The view
taken by the learned trial Court was a reasonable view and
even if by any stretch of imagination, it could be said that
another view was possible, that was not a ground sound
enough to set aside an order of acquittal."" (emphasis
supplied) In Sanjeev v. State of H.P., the Hon'ble Supreme
Court analyzed the relevant decisions and summarized the
approach of the appellate Court while deciding an appeal from
the order of acquittal. It observed thus:-