HARBANS SINGH AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 16-10-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1951 
IW/uJkrishM 
SitNuiMrtri Bai 
•• 
Tayt!G/li 
Dawood/JMi 
<l'fi"'41.,adk4r .1. 
JMJ 
o.i• "· 
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (l!JS2] SUPP. 
~ 
llfr. Pathak faintly attempted to argue in the 
alternative that even if the appellant was acting 
on behalf of the disclosed principal it would be 
entitled to sue because from the subsequent conduct 
of the parties a contract to the contrary could be 
reasonably inferred. 
Wo have, however, not 
allowed Mr. Pathak to argue this point. It was 
conceded by the appellant before the Appell11.te 
Court that if it was held that the plain till' firm was 
acting as agent for Khaitan & Sons Ltd., the suit 
WM not maintainable. This concession was made 
in view of the provisions of s. 236 of the Contract 
Act. Besides, the alternative plea which Mr. Pathak 
wanted to raise does not appear to have been 
expree.&ly pleaded or considered in the trial court. 
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. 
In the circumstances of this ce.se we direct that the 
parties should bear their own eoete in this Court . 
.Appeal di.nnissed. 
HARBANS SINGH AND ANOTHER 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(P. B. GAJENDB.AGADKAB, A. K. 
SABKAR, K. N. 
WANOHOO and K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Appeal agail&d tJ«JUittal-lflW/u...u by appellaU rourt, 
whtn ptrmiuibk-Dyfftg ~orroboralion, if neceut1ry. 
•
Thr. High Court set aside the Trial Court's order of 
...<
acquittal of the appellants and convictr.d them on a charge of 
murder under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal 
by the appellants by special leave. 
H•IJ., that this Court in its earlier decisions emphaaised 
that interference with an order of acquittal should be baaed 
only on "compelling and substantial reasons" and held that 
unless such reasons were present an Appeal Court should not 
interfere with an order of acquittal, but this Court did not 
try to curtail the powers of the appellate court .un~er s. 423 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though 1n •ts more 
recent pronouncements this Court hid 
less emphasis on 
• 
(1) s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
105 
"compelling reasons" the principle has remained the same. That 
principle is that in deciding appeals against acquittal the 
Court of Appeal must examine the evidence with particular 
care and must also examine the reasons on which the order of 
acquittal was based and should.interfere with the order only 
when satisfied that the view taken by the acquitting judge was 
clearly unreasonable. Once the Court came to the conclusion 
that the view of the lower court was unreasonable that itsel{ 
\\·as a "compelling rcasan" for interference. 
Once it was found that the High Court applied the 
correct principles in setting aside the order of acquittal this 
Court will not ordinarily interfere with the High Court's order 
of conviction in appeal against acquittal o- enter into the 
evidence to ascertain whether the High Court was right in its 
view of the evidence. 
Only such examination of the evidence 
would ordinarily be necessary as is needed to see that the High 
Court approached the question 
properly and applied the 
principle correctly. 
If the judgment of the High Court did not disclose a 
careful examination of the evidence in coming to the conclu-
sion that the view of the acquitting court was unreasonable or 
if it appeared that the High Court erred on questions of Jaw 
or misread the evidence or the judgment of the trial court, this 
Court would, unless the case was sent back to the High Court 
for re-hearing, appraise the evidence for itself to examine the 
reasons on which the lower r.ourt based its order of acquittal 
and then decide whether the High Courts view that the 
conclusions of the lower court was unreasonable, Was correct. 
If on such examination it appeared to this Court that the 
view of the acquitting court was unreasonable the acquittal 
would be set aside and if on the other hal)d· it appeared that 
the view was not unreasonable the order of acquittal would be 
restored. 
Suraj Pal Singh v. State, [1952) S.C.R. 191, Ajmer Singh 
v. State oJ Punjab, [1953]S.C.R. 418, Puran v. State of Punjab 
A.LR. 1953 S.C. 459, Ohinta v. State of M. P., Cr. A. No. 178 
of 59 and Aahrajkha Haibatkha Palhan v. State of Bombay, Cr. 
A. No. 38 of 1960, referred to. 
It was neither a rule of law nor of prudence that a dying 
declaration should be corroborated by other evidence· before 
a conviction could be based thereon. 
Ram Nath v. Sia~ of M. P. A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 420, 
referred to. 
Khualial R

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