K. RAMACHANDRAN versus V.N. RAJAN & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 216 · Decided: 07-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 216 
-
A 
K. RAMACHANDRAN 
.. 
v. 
V.N. RAJAN & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 485 of 2004) 
8 
JULY 7, 2009 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.) 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
c 
Revision by complainant and appeal by State against the 
same order of acquittal - Diverse orders - Effect of- Revision 
filed by complainant pending before Single Judge of 2High 
Court - Later, appeal against acquittal belatedly filed by State 
.... 
- Division Bench rejecting condonation of delay in filing the 
D appeal - Order not challenged by State - Subsequently, 
revision allowed by single Jw,,ge, directing the trial court to 
reconsider the matter - Held: By not allowing condonation of 
delay, acquittal of accused had atained finality - Once appeal 
at the instance of the State has been dismissed, the 
E complainant or the State cannot ask for revision of the 
judgment - Thereafter, Single Judge could not have reversed 
that effect and upset that position - The fact of pendency of 
the appeal and the revision should have been brought to the 
notice of respective courts by the State counsel and the 
.r
F 
accused - Both the cases should have been clubbed together 
- Registry of High Court should not have allowed such an 
incongruous situation - Order of Single Judge in revision 
petition set aside - Practice and Procedure. 
REVISION: 
G 
Revision Petition filed before High Court by complainant 
_. 
... 
against order of acquittal - Scope of interference by High 
Court - Explained. 
H 
216 
K. RAMACHANDRAN v. V.N. RAJAN & ANR. 
217 
" 
~· 
The appellant-accused faced trial for offences A 
punishable u/ss.302 and 201 IPC on the allegations that 
he committed murder of his wife and threw the dead 
body in a well. The trial court did not find the acquisition 
as proved, and acquitted the accused of the charges. 
Initially the State did not file any appeal, but the 
B 
complainant filed a criminal revision before the High 
Court. During the pendency of the revision, the State 
challenged the acquittal of the accused by filing an 
appeal which was delayed by 801 days. The Division 
Bench of the High Court dismissed the application for c 
r 
condonation of delay. Subsequently, the revision petition 
' 
was allowed by the Single Judge and the trial court was 
-
directed to reconsider of the matter on the basis of the 
evidence already on record. Aggrieved, the accused filed 
the appeal. 
D 
' 
It was contended for 'he accused-appellant that the 
Division Bench of the High Court having rejected the 
application for condonation of delay, the appeal stood 
dismissed and, therefore, the revision also ought to have 
been dismissed by the Single Judge. The stand of the 
E 
complainant was that in the appeal the High Court had 
no occasion to consider the merits of the matter as it 
•, 
merely rejected the application for condonation of delay; 
.. 
and that un-tenability of the revision was never pointed 
out to the Single Judge by showing that the appeal 
F 
against acquittal could not proceed because of rejection 
of application for condonation of delay. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, an incongruous G 
'.~ 
... 
situation has arisen wherein an appeal against the 
judgment had failed, though only on the question of 
limitation, yet, a revision against the same judgment, 
however, continued and was allowed also, and all this ' 
H 
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A happened because of the casual attitude on the part of 
.. 
the State Government as also the appellant-accused in 
not pointing out the proper facts to the Courts, both to 
the Division Bench as well as the Single Judge. When 
appeal was filed along with the application for 
B condonation of delay against the judgment of acquittal, 
the revision pending against the same judgment of 
acquittal should have been joined with the appeal. It is 
all the result of colossal casualness even on the part of 
the Registry of the High Court which has resulted in such 
c incongruous situation. Since the appellant-accused had 
not raised the question about the continueability of the 
revision before the High Court, this Court would not 
ordinarily allow the counsel for appellant-accused to raise 
-
that question before it. [Para 9 and 1 OJ [226-E-F; 230-G-
D H; 231-A] 
1.2. The Division Bench in not allowing the 
condonation of delay has effectively dismissed the 
appeal in the sense that it has not allowed the State 
Government to proce

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