MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH versus SARJU SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 20-10-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH 
v. 
SARJU SINGH & ANR. 
November 20, 1967 
[M. HIDAYATULL/\H AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), s. 439-Sessions Court 
11cquits-Redsion-Power of High Court. 
In a rc\ision filed by a private party,. the High Court in its powers 
under s. 439, Code of Criminal Procedure . direc!td the retrial of the 
appellant, who had been acquitted by the Sessions Jud1;e. 
In doing so, 
the High Court. went into the evidence very minutely, questioned every 
finding of the Sessions Judge, gave its own interpretation of the evidence 
de nova. 
HELD : In 5ctting aside an acquittal in a revision and ordering a 
retrial, there must exist a manifest illegality in the judgment of a '.quittal 
or a gross miscarriage oi · justice. 
An interference in revision with an 
order of ru:quittal can only take place, if there is a glaring defect of pro-
cedure such as that the Court has no jurisdi:tion to try the case or the 
court had shut out sOI&e material evidence which 
was 
admissible 
or 
attempt to take into account evidence which was· not admissible or had 
overlooked some e\idence.. Although the list given is not exhaustive of 
all the circumstances in which the High Court may interfere with an 
acquittal in revision it is obvious that the defect in the judgment under 
revision must be analogous· to those actually indicated by this Court. 
1~90 A. D-E) 
D. Stephens v. Nosibolla, [1951] S.C.R. 284, Logendrr.nath Jha and 
others v. S/iri Po/ai/al Blswas, [1951] S.C.R. 676 and K. Chinnaswamy 
Reddy v. State of Andftra Pradesh, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 412. followed. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
23 of 1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
July 17, 1964 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 
597 of 1963. 
N11r-ud-di11 A It med and D. Gobur<1han, for the appellant. 
R. C. Prasad. for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, J. 
This is an appeal against the judgment, July 
I 7. 1963. of a learned single Judge of the High Court at Patna 
setting aside the acquittal of the appellant ordered by il;e 1st Addi-
tional Sessions Judge. Gaya and directing his retrial. 
The only question in this appeal is whether the High Court in 
exercising its revision.al powers under s. 439 of the Code of Crimi-
nal Procedure acted in accordance with the principles sNtled by 
this Court for interference with acquittal by way of revision filed 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
Ii%~} c S.C.R 
by a private party. 
To apply those principles, c~rtain facts 111<1) 
A 
\ 
first be stated. 
The appellant was tried on three charges levelled against him; 
First was under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally 
causing the death of one Kuldtp Singh with a fire-arm on Decem· 
bcr 18, 1961 in village Gajra Chatar; the se.cond was attempt lt> 
murder Kuldip Singh's companion Sarju Singh by shooting at him 
with the same weapon; and the third was the unlawful possession 
of the weapon (a revolver) which is an offence under the Ami' 
Act. It appears that there was some ill-feeling between the appel-
lant and Kuldip Singh, not directly, but because the appellant. 
who is a lawyer, was conducting cases on behalf of his sister in ;i 
prolonged litigation started by Kuldip Singh and his party. The 
litigation concerned the possession of land and it is admitted before 
U' that all the cases had in fact ended in favour of the appellant\ 
sister. 
The occurrence is stated to have taken place when an inquiry 
into a case under s. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wa-
taking place. 
A notice had been issued to Kuldip Singh's part,· 
to show cause why they should ·not be proceeded against and asked 
to furnish interim bail. 
The prosecution story is that the deceased 
Kuldip Singh accompanied by Sarju Singh the injured man. ant1 
one Musafir Singh (P. W. 12) were proceeding towards villag,· 
l\awadah viu Tilaiya Railway Station. They 
had 
&tarted earh 
in the morning and had taken an hour and a half to reach village 
Gajra Chatar where the incident is ~id to have taken place. When 
they reached near a garden, they found two persons sittinj! under 
a tree and approaching them they recognised the appell:.nt· but th~ 
other was unknown. 
These persons began to shadow Kuldip Sin)!h 
and his companions, and after they had proceeded a little further 
towards the garden, one of them fired at Kuldip on his back. Th

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