AKALU AHIR AND OTHERS versus RAMDEO RAM

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 01-05-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: I.D. DUA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

J.lO 
AKALU AHJR AND OTIIERS 
v. 
RAMDEO RAM 
May I, 1973 
[K. K. MATHEW AND I. D. DUA, 'JJ.] 
A 
Code of Crimi11al Procedure (Act 5 of 
1898), Ss. 417, 
4~5, 439-lflgh 
B 
<:ourt's power of revision in cases of acquittal by trial court-Scope of. · 
Weight of 
e1·idence-E11niity between parties of cb111plai11t and accused-
Effect of. 
The trial ·court, on a consideration of the evidence, acquitted the appellants 
of the offences under Ss. 307 and 307 /109 I.P.C, The State did not file any 
appeal against the order of acquittal but the Victim invoked the revisional juris-
diction of the High Court. under Ss. 435 and 439 Cr.P.C. 
The High Conrt 
.allowed the revision, set aside the acquittal and remitted the case for retrial. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : An unrestricted right of appeal from acquittal is specifically con-
ferred only on the State and a private complainant is given the right of appeal 
-0nly \Vben the criminal prosecution was instituted on his complaint and then 
also subject_ to special leave by the High Court. A private con1plainant can 
-0nly claim a right, in co1nmon -\Yith all aggrieved parties in a criminal pro-
.ceeding, to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court for redress 
against miscart·iage of justice arising from an erroneous order of acquittal; '1ut 
1he High Court's power in. such cases is circumscribed 
by the provisions of 
Ss. 417 and 439 .. CrcP.C. and also by the fundamental principles of criminal 
jurisprudence. 
Jt is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some viola-
1ion of fundanlental principles of la\v by the trial court that the High Conn 
is empowered to set aside the order 
of acquittal and direct a retrial of the 
:acquiue·d accused. 
From the \'ery nature of this pawer it should be exercis· 
ed only in exceptional cases and \Vith great care and caution. Trials are not 
to be lightly se.t aside' \vhen.such orders expose the accused persons to a fresh 
trial \Vith all its consequential harassment. The pO\\'er of revision conferred 
·en the High Court by Ss. 435 and 439 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary discretionary 
powCr vested in the superior court to be exercised in aid of justice. The High 
Court has been invested \Vith this power to see that justice is done in accord· _ 
.ance \vith the recognised rules of criminal jurisprudence and that the subordi-
nate courts do not exceed their jurisdiction or abuse the power conferred on 
them by la\v. As a general rule, this po\Ver, in spite of the wide language of 
1he sections does not contemplate interference . with conclusions of fact in the 
absence of serious legal infirmity nnd failure of justice. This 
power is cer-
tainly not intended to be exercised as· to make 
one portion of the Criminal 
Procedure Code conflict with another as would be the case when. in the garb 
of exercising revisional power, the High Court in effect exercises the power of 
:appeal in face of statutory prohibition. In revision, the High Court is expreMly 
prohibited from converting acquittal into a COD.'\'iction. 
It makes it- ~rcfore 
all the more incumbent on the High Court to sec that it does not convert the 
'finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering 
a retrial. 
The High Court when approached by a private party for exercising 
its power of revision in the case of an order of acquittal should therefore 
refrai-:i from interfering except when there is a glaring le~al defect of a serious 
nature which has resulted in grave failure of justice. 
The High Court is not 
expected to act as if it is hearing an apptal in spite of the \Vide language 
under s. 435 which emoowers it to satisfy itself as to the correctllea, lcplity 
or propriety of a finding, sentence or order and as to. the regularity of any 
proceeding, and also in spite of the fact that under s. 439 it can exercise inter 
alia the power conferred on a court of appeal under _s. 423, Cr.P.C. The power 
being discretionary. it is to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. Judicial 
discretion means a discretion which is informed by tradition. methodiscd · by 
analogy and disciplined by system. [133F-G, H; 134A-D, E-H-13SA-C] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
, 
' 
..
"' 
AKALU AHIR v. RAMDEO (Dua, /.) 
131 
'1 n the _present· case the High -Court ha.S re-weighed the -evidence from its 
O\\'D point of view and though it noticed the, correct legal ~tion regarding the 
limits of its jurisdiction to interfere with an order of acquitta

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.