K. CHINNASWAMY REDDY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 412 · Decided: 25-07-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 13 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

196B 
v.· 
Michael Mark 
·, 
. _ 
__.... 
19~S 
July 2s. 
' I 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) 
"The employment of a permanent emp-
loyee employed on monthly rates of pay may 
be terminated by giving one month's notice 
or on payment of one months wages (includ-
ing all allowances) in lieu of notice ...... " 
Under this provision, the respondents, in quest-
ion were entitled to the reliefs sought by union be-
fore the Payment of Wages Authority inasmuch as the 
action of the appellants in removing their name-
from the Must.er rolls as from 2 p. m. on Januarys 
14, 1957 was in fact termination of tb.eir service 
without notioe. 
\ 
The appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed 
with costs. 
Both the a.ppealH were heard together 
1-
and there will be one hearing fee. 
"· 
Appeal dismisse,d, 
K. CHINNASWAMY REDDY 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., K. N. WANOHOO and 
J. 0. SHAH, JJ.) 
Acquittal-Power of High Oourt in revision-Retrial-
Ar1mi8aibility 
of statemen~ ?""4• by accussea <luring Police 
inveatigation-Oode of Oriminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 
1898), 1. 439-In<lian Evidence Act, 1872 (1of1872), a, 27. 
The appellant tried with another, was convicted under 
s 411 Indian Penal 'code while the other was convicted under 
s~ 457 and 380 of the Code by the Assistant Sessions Judge. 
The appellant had stated to the police during investigation 
that «he would show the place where he had hidden them 
(the ornaments)" and thereafter went to the garden and dug 
out 
two bundles containing the ornaments. The other 
accused person had also similarly stated that he had given the 
.., 
--1 
.. y 
J 
~ 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPoRTS 
413 
ornaments to one Bada Sab, took the police party to Bada 
Sab and asked him to return the ornament which he did. 
The Sessions Judge on appeal took the view that that part 
of the statement of the appellant where he said that he had 
hidden the ornaments was not admissible in evidence and in 
the absence ·of any other evidence possession of the orna-
ment could not be said to have been proved. He, therefore; 
held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt 
and acquitted him. 
He also took a similar view with regard 
to the other accused person and acquitted him. The order 
of acquittal was set aside by the High Court in revision 
under s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a retrial 
was directed; It was ,against the order of retrial that the 
appeal was directed. 
Held, that it was open to a High Court in revision and 
at the instance of a private party to set aside an order of 
acquittal though the State might not. have appealed. But 
such ju1 isdiction should be exercised only in exceptional 
cases, as where a glaring defect in the procedure or a 
manifest error of law leading to a flagrant miscarriage of 
justice has taken place. 
Whens·. 439(4) of the Code forbids 
the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into 
one of conviction, it is not proper that the High Court 
should do the same indirectly by ordering a retrial. It was 
not possible to lay down the criteria for by which to judge 
such exceptional ca~es. It was, however, clear that the High 
Court would be justified in interfering in cases· such as ( 1) 
where the trial court had wrongly shut out evidence sought 
to be adduced by the prosecution, (2) where the appeal court 
had wrongly held evidence admitted by the trial court to be 
inadmissible, (3) where material evidence has been overlooked 
either by the trial court.or the court of appeal or, (4) where 
the acquittal was based on a compounding of the offence not 
permitted by law and cases similar to the above. 
· 
D. Stephens v. Nosibolla, [195lfS.C.R. 284and Logendra· 
nath Jha, v. Shri Polailal Biswas, [1951] S.C.R. 676, referred 
to. 
There could be no doubt in the instant case that the 
entire statements of the appellant as well as of the other 
accused person would be admissible under s. 27 of the Indian 
·Evidence Ac~ and the Sessions Judge was in error in ruling 
out parts of them and the High Court was clearly justified in 
setting aside the acquittal in revision. 
Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, (1946) L.R. 74 I.A. 
65, referred to. 
. 
1968 
_,__ 
K, Chinn..,wami 
Rtddy · 
v. 
8tal1 of 
A nikra Prausls 
1968 
K. CA'"~-~Qu~ 
R"'f:I ' 
'~ ..... 
. ~}llall ef. 
An""• Prad"h 
Wane.laoJ. 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i963j 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISDIOTlON: Criminal 
Apeal No. 6 of 1960. 
Appeal by special leave from

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