Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)Shyamal Saha & Anr vs State Of West Bengal on 24 February, 2014
11. It has also been held in Shyamal Saha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal,
2014(2) Scale 690 as under:
Joginder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 24 October, 2013
19. The crucial issue for consideration, therefore, relates to
interference by the High Court in an acquittal given by the
Trial Court. Recently, in Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana3
it was held, after referring to Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor4
that "Before we proceed to consider the rivalised contentions
raised at the bar and independently scrutinize the relevant
evidence brought on record, it is fruitful to recapitulate the law
enunciated by this Court pertaining to an appeal against
acquittal.
Sheo Swarup vs King-Emperor on 26 July, 1934
In Sheo Swarup (supra), it has been stated that the
High Court can exercise the power or jurisdiction to reverse an
order of acquittal in cases where it finds that the lower court
has "obstinately blundered" or has "through incompetence,
CRL.L.P.745/2014 Page 10 of 14
stupidity or perversity" reached such "distorted conclusions as
to produce a positive miscarriage of justice" or has in some
other way so conducted or misconducted himself as to produce
a glaring miscarriage of justice or has been tricked by the
defence so as to produce a similar result." Unfortunately, the
paraphrasing of the concerned passage from Sheo Swarup
gave us an impression that the High Court can reverse an
acquittal by a lower court only in limited circumstances.
Therefore, we referred to the passage in Sheo Swarup and find
that what was stated was as follows:
Muhammad Nur vs Emperor on 17 December, 1909
"There is in their opinion no foundation for the view,
apparently supported by the judgments of some Courts in
India, that the High Court has no power or jurisdiction to
reverse an order of acquittal on a matter of fact, except in cases
in which the lower Court has "obstinately blundered," or has
"through incompetence, stupidity or perversity" reached such
"distorted conclusions as to produce a positive miscarriage of
justice," or has in some other way so conducted itself as to
produce a glaring miscarriage of justice, or has been tricked by
the defence so as to produce a similar result." The legal
position was reiterated in Nur Mohammad v. Emperor5 after
citing Sheo Swarup and it was held:
Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2007
20. The entire case law on the subject was discussed in
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [6] beginning with perhaps
the first case decided by this Court on the subject being
CRL.L.P.745/2014 Page 11 of 14
Prandas v. State. 7 It was held in Chandrappa as follows:
Prandas vs The State on 14 March, 1950
20. The entire case law on the subject was discussed in
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [6] beginning with perhaps
the first case decided by this Court on the subject being
CRL.L.P.745/2014 Page 11 of 14
Prandas v. State. 7 It was held in Chandrappa as follows:
Chelloor Mankkal Narayan Ittiravi ... vs State Of Travancore-Cochin on 10 November, 1952
In the case of Chelloor
Mankkal Narayan Ittiravi Nambudiri v. State of Travancore-cochin,
reported at [1954] CrlJ 102, wherein it was held as under:
Ghurey Lal vs State Of U.P on 30 July, 2008
(v) When the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread
the material evidence or has ignored material documents like
dying declaration/report of ballistic experts, etc. the appellate
court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial court
depending on the materials placed. (Vide Madan Lal v. State
of J&K [9] , Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P.[10] , Chandra Mohan
Tiwari v. State of M.P.[11] and Jaswant Singh v. State of
Haryana[12.)"
Chandra Mohan Tiwari And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 1992
(v) When the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread
the material evidence or has ignored material documents like
dying declaration/report of ballistic experts, etc. the appellate
court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial court
depending on the materials placed. (Vide Madan Lal v. State
of J&K [9] , Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P.[10] , Chandra Mohan
Tiwari v. State of M.P.[11] and Jaswant Singh v. State of
Haryana[12.)"