LexMANSOOR & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MANSOOR & ORS.
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
May 6, 1971
[I. D. DUA AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.J
Code of Criminal Pracedure, 1898, s. 4(1) (t), 492, 411(3}-Presentatio11
of opp.al In High Court against acquittal of accused-Additional Govern·
ment Advocate when appointed Public Prosecutor can present appeal-
Such appeal is a 'case' in which the Public Prosecutor is entitled to act-
Power of High Court in hearing appeal against acquittal-Principles.
731'
A.
B·
Constitution of India, Art. 136-Scope of arguments in appeal by
c·
special leave.
The appellants were charged along with five others for the offences
of murder and attempt to murder. Five accused persons were acquitted
by the trial court. Four of the appellants were convicted by the trial court,
the conviction being upheld by the High Court. The fifth appellant was
acquitted by the trial court but convicted by .the High Court m an appeal
D.
by the State. In appeal by special leave it was contended before this Court;
· (i) that the conviction of the appellants coulli not be sustained on the
evidence ; (ii) that the High Court in reversing the judgment of acquittal
by the trial court against one of the appellants had not followed the prin·
ciples laid down by this Court ; and (iii) that the Additional Government
Advocate was not authorised to present the a\'P°"l against acquittal in the
High Court because such appeal was not a 'case.
HELD: {!) Under Art. 136 of the Constitution this Court does not
norm8.Uy re-appraise the evidence for considering. the credibility of the
witnesses. Unless the trial is -vitiated by some illegality Qr irregularity of
procedures or their is some violation of the rules of natural justice result-
ing in unfair trial, or unless the judgment has resulted in gross miscarriage
of justice, this Court does not as a rule proceed to eyaluate the evidence
E.
for coming to its ·own independent conclusion.
No such infirmity had
F
been made out by the appellants' counsel in the present case.
[736 Fl
(ii) The appellants' . counsel was also unable to show that the High
Court in reversing the judgment of the trial court against one of the
appellants had failed to observe !he principles laid down by this Court.
[737 HJ
Sanwat Singh & Ors. v. State of Ra;asthan, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 120, Keshav
Ganga Ram Navaga & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, Cr. A. No. 100/68
dt 3-2-1971, Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, (1934) L.R. 61 I.A. 398 and
Laxman Kalu v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1390, referred fo.
(iii) The Additional Government Advocate who presented the appeal
against acquittal in the High Court was notified as Public Prosecutor for
th• High Court in respect of cases arising in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
The case re~~tilll in the acquittal of the accused persons would clearly
~· a cue lf!Stnl in the State and within the contemplation of the notifica·
lien.
Read1n1 s. 4(f)(t) Cr. P.C. which defines 'public prosecutor' toaother
G
R
732
:B
c
. D
E
G
H
SUPREMB COtlRT REPORTS
[1971] SUPP. 9.1:.1..
with s. 492 Cr. P. C. under which the State Government is empowered to
appoint Public Prosecutors, the Additional Government Advocate when
appointed as a Public Prosecutor for tho High Court in respect of caseo
arising in tho State of Madhya Pradesh must be held to be a Public Prose-
cutor lawfully empowered to present appeals in ~ High Court against
orders of acquittal. [740 C]
•
Bhimappa Basappa Bhu Sannayar v. Laxman Shivrayappa Samagoud«
& Ors. A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1153 and Bhagwan Das v. The King, Al.R. 1949
P.C 263, referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos.
30 and 31 of 1967.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
April 21, 1966 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench
in Criminal Appeals Nos. 248 and 313 of 1965.
Nur-ud-din Ahmed, C.L. Sareen, 1. C. Talwar and R. L.
Kohli for the appellants (in Cr. A. No. 30 of 1967).
I. N. Shroff, for the appellant (in· Cr. A. No. 31 of 1967).
Nur·ud-din Ahmed, C. L. Sareen, S. K. Mehta and K. L .
Mehta, for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and 9 (in Cr. A. No. 31 of
1967).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dua, J.-These are two appeals by special leave. In one
appeal, Mansoor, Rashid, Ishaq, Yunus
and
Mehmood sf o
Bhondekhan are the appellants and in the other the State has
appealed. against the acquittal of Ajimkhan, Hakimkhan, Mah-
mood.khan sf o Dilawarkhan, Gabbu and. Mehmood s/ o Bhonde-
khExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.