Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs C.I.T. Bombay on 25 October, 1954
The learned Sessions Judge accordingly excluded from consideration the entry in the confidential register as also the evidence of Sub-Inspector B. N. Khare. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that since the Magistrate arrived at a decision of fact by considering material which was irrelevant to the enquiry and based his decision partly on conjectures, surmises and suspicions and partly on evidence, then in such a situation the order of acquittal should be set aside and a retrial should be ordered. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in -- 'Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay', (S) AIR 1955 SC 271 (A). That was a case where the High Court summarily dismissed an application made under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act, 1922 requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to consider the case and refer to it the questions of law said by the appellant to arise out of the order of the Tribunal.
Section 19 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Baldeo vs Deo Narain And Ors. on 17 November, 1952
8. My attention has been drawn to two other cases. The one is a case of this Court in -- 'Baldeo v. Deo Narain', AIR 1954 All 104 (B) where it was observed by a learned Judge of this Court that a High Court is no doubt reluctant to interfere with an order of acquittal by the trial Court but if the trial is full of errors and Indicates that the Court had deliberately shut its eyes to patent facts on record and provides an instance of flagrant breach of fundamental principles regarding judgment, the judgment is vitiated and cannot be sustained. A perusal of that reported case would show that that case bears no parallel to the present one.
Satish Chandra Das vs Chinta Haran Saha And Anr. on 25 May, 1938
Here the acquittal by the trial Court was not in any way full of errors, and the Court did not deliberately shut its eyes to patent facts on record, and the case did not provide an instance of flagrant breach of fundamental principles regarding judgment. The judgment, therefore, cannot be said to be vitiated. The other case to which my attention has been drawn is the decision of the Calcutta High Court in -- 'Satish Chandra v. Chinta Haran', AIR 1938 Cal 613 (C). It was laid down in that decision that the High Court has power to interfere in revision with an appellate judgment of acquittal, and though that power should be sparingly exercised, it would be wrong to refuse to exercise it in cases where there has been a failure of justice by reason of the appellate Court not having brought a judicial mind to bear upon the evidence. In the present case I am of the opinion that in deciding the case the two Courts below had brought a judicial mind to bear upon the evidence and consequently the order of acquittal should not be interfered with.
1