BHIMAPPA BASSAPPA BHU SANNAVAR versus LAXMAN SHIVARAYAPPA SAMAGOUDA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 11-03-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH, A.N. RAY, I.D. DUA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

.\ 
ll 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BHIMAPPA BASSAPPA BHU SANNAVAR 
v. 
LAXMAN SHIVARAYAPPA SAMAGOUDA AND 
OTHERS 
March 11, 1970 
[M. H!DAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N· RAY ,AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Code of Cri1ninal Procedure 1898, s. 417(3)-Po/ice filing charge-
sheet against two accused--Appellant filing co1nplaint against third accu ... ed 
-Acquittal of all accused by Sessions Court-Whether appellant entitled to 
file petition for special leave under s. 417(3) in the case ngainst the third 
l/ccused. 
The appellant's house was set on fire an<l burnt <lown. 
As a result o'f 
a report filed by his son the police arrested Respondents I and 2 and 
·;ubmitt.:d a charge-sheet against them. 
The appellant was dissatisfied 
that the police had not prosecuted Respondent No. 3 also and he filed 
<:. cotnplaint against him in the same Coti'rt. 
The Magistrate inquired 
into the two cases together and committed separately the first t\VO respon-
dents an<l the third respondent separately to the Court of Sessions. 
After the Sessions J udgc had held all the three respondents not guilty and 
ocquitteJ them, the appellant applied under s. 417(3) Cr. P.C.. for special 
leave to appeal against the acquittal of the three respondents; but this 
petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the peti-
tioner had no locus startdi to prefer an appeal when the State had proM 
secuted the respondents in the Sessions Court. 
A revision application 
filed by the appellant was also rejected. 
On appeal to this Court. 
HELD : The appclh1'nt \Vas entitled to have a hearing of his petition 
for special leave under s. 417(3) and the case must therefore he remitted 
to the High Court for this purpose. 
The answer to the question ·wl1ether 
the appellant had a right to move the High Court for special leave under 
s. 417(3) depended upon whether there was a case instituted by him 
upon a con1plaint in vvhich an acquittal was recorded, for this is the · 
requirement of the speC"ial section anJ also the condition precedent to 
the right. [4 Bl 
On the facts, there coul<l be no doubt that one of the cases was 
instituted on the report of a police officer and the o_ther on the complaint 
of the complainant. 
There could be no question oI merger because the 
identity of the two cases was maintained right<upto the end of the Sessions 
Tfial. 
The case of the appellant proceeded on its own number and al-
though evidence was led in both cases together, the acquittal was record-
ed separately in each of the two cases. 
The appellant was therefore 
entitled to move the High Court for special leave in his own case. [6 G] 
The fact that the appellant had also applierl for revision which was 
rejected and had applied for special leave against that order which was 
refused bv this Court, did not mean that that must conclude the matter. 
The appellant's statutory right to move the High Court could rot be lost 
by reason of the revision and the result of the revision, had no bearing 
upon the natter. [7 BJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Criminal Appeal No. 
166 of 1967. 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] l S.C.R. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 28, 1966 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Peti-
tion No. 610 of 1966. 
V. K. Sanghi and M. S. Narasimhan, for the appellant. 
S. S. Ja1,ali and M. Veerappa, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 
R. Gopaldkrishnan, for respondent. No. 3. 
S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 4. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, C.J.-This is an apprnl by special leave against 
the judgment and order of the High Court of Mysore dated 
November 28, 1966 in Misc. Criminal Petition No. 610 of 1966. 
By that order the High Court held that the present appelill.Ilt 
Bhimappa had no /ocus-standi to invokes. 417(3) of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure and to ask for special leave to file an appeal 
against the acquittal of the respondent. 
The appellant questiOllls 
the correctness of the order. 
Bhimappa (appellant) had a house at Athni, Taluka Belgaum 
District. 
It stood in the name of his eldest son anfd his two other 
sons lived in one part of the house and the other part was let out 
to the first respondent Laxman who ran a boarding house and also 
lived there with his wife and children and his mistress Champevva, 
the second respondent. 
No rent was fixed but the sons of Bhim-
appa used to have their meals with respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 
Bhimappa asked his tenant to vacate the house as he wanted t

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