Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.47 seconds)
State Of Gujarat vs Kathi Ramku Aligbhai on 3 February, 1984 cites

Bhagwanbhai Dulabhai Jadhav vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 July, 1962

5. The second case which we would refer to is a case of Bhagwanbhai Dulabhai Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 64 Bom LR 784 : 1963 (2) Cri LJ 694. It was a case under the Bombay Prohibition Act. It was the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 in that case was driving a car and the car was ultimately opened with the help of the key which was found on the person of accused No. 5.43 sealed bottles of foreign liquor and a large number of packets of tobacco were found. Several other persons were also prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 65(a), 66(b), 81 and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The defence case was that there was a plot engineered by the enemies of the first accused and accused No. 5 denied that the key of the luggage compartment was found on his person. The trial Magistrate held that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to establish that the persons accused before him were acting in conspiracy or were abetting each other in transporting contraband articles in the car and acquitted them. Against the order of acquittal the State of Bombay appealed to the High Court of Bombay and the High Court observed that the trial Court treated the case as "a mathematical problem", and examined the evidence giving undue importance to minor discrepancies. In the view of the High Court the evidence established that in consequence of information received from police station Vapi, the motor car was stopped and searched. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court was undoubtedly dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal, but the Code of Criminal Procedure placed no special limitation upon the powers of the High Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. The High Court is entrusted with power to review evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion on the evidence. There are certainly restrictions inherent in the exercise of the power, but those restrictions arise from the nature of the jurisdiction which the High Court exercises. In a criminal trial the burden always lies on the prosecution to establish the case against the accused and the accused is presumed to be innocent of the offence charged till the contrary is established. The burden lies upon the prosecution, ami the presumption of innocence applies with equal, if not greater, force in an appeal to the High Court against an order of acquittal. In applying the presumption of innocence the High Court is undoubtedly slow to disturb findings based on appreciation of oral evidence for the Court which has the opportunity of seeing the witnesses is always in a better position to evaluate their evidence than the Court which merely peruses the record. In the present case, the High Court, in our judgment, was right in holding that the trial Court ignored the broad features of the prosecution case, and restricted itself to a consideration of minor discrepancies. The Magistrate meticulously juxtaposed the evidence of different witnesses on disputed points and discarded the evidence in its entirety when discrepancies were found. That method was rightly criticised by the High Court as fallacious. The Supreme Court further observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sheo Swarup vs King-Emperor on 26 July, 1934

With these submissions the learned Advocate Shri Vyas submitted that in an appeal against acquittal no interference was called for when the learned Additional Sessions Judge on appreciation of evidence of the eyewitnesses rejected the testimony and more so because he had an opportunity to see them in the witness box. Having considered the views expressed in the judgment and also the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate Shri Vyas for the defence it is not possible for us to appreciate the evidence in the manner in which it is either done by the learned Additional Sessions Judge or suggested by the learned Advocate Shri Vyas. It appears to us that glaring things are overlooked. We are conscious of the principles laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, reported in AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) : 1935 (36) Cri LJ 786 and these principles are reiterated by the Supreme Court thereafter, in various rulings and that remains the law till this date.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 816 - Full Document
1