LexLOGENDRA NATH JHA & OTHERS versus SHRI POLAILAL BISWAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1951 ManoharLal v. The State. Bose J. 1951 May 24 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1951] permfo his rival, who employs perhaps a dozen mctn- bers of his family, to rctnain open, dearly places the former at a grave commercial disadvantage. To permit such a distinction might well engender discontent and in the end react upon the relations between employer and employed. All these are matters of policy into which we cannot enter but which serv.e to justify a wide and liberal interpretation of words and phrases in these entires. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellant : Vidya Sagar. Agent for the;_ respondent : P. A. Mehta. LOGENDRA NATH JHA & OTHERS v. SHRI POLAILAL BISW AS. [SHRI liARILAL KANIA c. J., PATANJALI SASTRI, S. R. DAS and VIVIAN BosE JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), s. 439 (4)-R<vision against acquittal-High Court's powers-Rer•ersal of findings of facts- /mpropriety of. Though sub-s. (I) of s. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code authorises the High Court to exercise in its discretion any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal by s. 423, yet sub-s. ( 4) specifically excludes the power to "convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction." This docs not mean that in dealing with a revision petition by a private party against an order of acquittal, the High Court can in the absence of any error on a point of law rc·appraisc the evidence and reverse the findings of facts on which the acquittal was based, provided only it stops short of finding the accused guilty and passing sentence on him, by ordering a retrial. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1951. Appeal against a Judgment and Order dated 22nd January, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Imam J.) in Criminal Revision No. 1533 of 1950. S.C.R. SUPREME COl}RT REPORTS 677 S. P. Sinha (P. S. Safeer and K. N. Aggarwal, with him) for the appellants. The respondent did not appear. 1951. May 24. The Judgment of the Court was deli- vered by PATANJALI SAsTRI J.-This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna setting aside an order of acquittal of the appel- lants by the Sessions Judge, Purnea, and directing their retrial. The appellants were prosecuted for alleged offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 302 and· 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of one Polai Lal Biswas who lodged a complaint against _them before the police. The prosecution case was that, while the complainant was harvesting the paddy crop on, his field at about 10 a.m. on 29th November, 1949, ·a mob of about fifty persons came on to the field armed with ballams, lathis apd other weapons and that the first appellant Logendranath Jha, who was leading the mob, demanded a settlement of all outstanding disputes with the complainant and said he would not allow the paddy to be removed unless the disputes were settled. An altercation followed a.s a result of which Logendra ordered an assault by his men. Then Logendra and one of his men, Harihar, gave ballam blows to one of the labourers, Kangali, who fell down and died on the spot. Information was given to the police who investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet. The committing Magistrate found that a prima f acie case was made out and committed the appellants to the Court of Sessions for trial. The appellants pleaded not guilty alleging inter alia, that Mohendar and Debender, the brothers of Logendra (appellants 2 and 3) were not present in the village of Dandkhora with which they had no concern, as all the lands in that village had been allotted to Logendra at a previous partition, that Logendra himself was not in the village at the time of the occurrence but arrived 1951 Logmdranath Jha and Others v. Shri Polailal Biswas. Patanjali Sastri J. 1~51 logendranath Jha and Others v. Shri Polailal Biswas. Patanjali Sastri ]. 678 SUPREME COURT lEPORT5 [1951) soon after and was dragged tQ th!! place at the instance of his enemies in the village and was pl~ed under arrest by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police w!Jo had arrived there previously. It was also .alleged that there were two factions in the village, one of which was led by one Harimohan, a relation of the com- plainant, and the other by Logcndra and there had been numerous revenue and criminal proceedings and long-st
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.