RAMESHWAR PRASAD versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 1162 · Decided: 05-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 3 S.C.R. 1162 
... 
A 
RAMESHWAR PRASAD 
• 
v. 
ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal App19al No. 434 of 2009) 
B 
MARCH 5, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, V.S. SIRPURKAR AND ASOK 
KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
c 
s.374 - Appeal against conviction - Appellate court, 
without examining the case on merits, remanding the matter 
to trial court observing that there were lacunae in prosecution 
case - In revision High Court set aside order of remand but 
D upheld the conviction - HELD: Matter remitted to High Court 
for decision on merits - Practice and Procedure. 
The appellant, a Branch Manager in Central 
Cooperative Bank, was convicted and sentenced uls 408 
IPC. The appellate court found certain lacunae in the 
E prosecution version and remanded the matter for re-
examination. The High Court in revision petition held that 
order of remand was against the position of law, but 
l!lpheld the conviction. Aggrieved, the accused filed the 
f 
appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the 
High Court, the Court 
HELD: Neither in the appeal before the Sessions 
G 
Judge nor in the revision before the High Court there was 
examination of the case on merits. The appellate court, 
as rightly noted by the High Court, remanded the matter 
to the trial court for consideration of various aspects 
which in essence were to fill the lacunae in the 
H 
1162 
RAMESHWAR PRASAD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
1163 
-. 
prosecution version. The High Court noted that this was 
A 
impermissible in law, but restored the conviction and the 
sentence without examining merits of the case. In the 
circumstances, the order of the High Court is set aside 
and the matter is remitted to it for a decision on merits. 
[Para 6] [1164-H; 1165-A, B] 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 434 of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. c 
Appeal No. 854 of 2007. 
S.C. Gupta and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the 
Appellant. 
Manish Kumar, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Satya Prakash 
D 
,. 
and Promila Matta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
E 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
'! 
learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur 
Bench dismissing the application filed for recalling/modifying 
the order dated 14.3.2007 passed in Criminal Revision Petition 
F 
No.671 of 2004. 
3. Background facts need to be noted in brief. 
The appellant was appointed as the Branch Manager in 
Central Co-operative Bank, Branch Bonli in District Sawai 
G 
Madhopur. On 25.4.1982 the First Information Report was 
lodged by the S.H.O. of the concerned police station for alleged 
commission of offence punishable under Sections 408 and 462 
' 
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). 
Subsequently, cognizance was taken for the allegation relating 
H 
1164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A to offence punishable under Section 408 IPC for alleged 
criminal breach of trust of certain amounts. The trial Court by 
order dated 11.2.2003 convicted and sentenced the appellant 
in the aforesaid criminal case. The appellant filed appeal 
against the judgment and order of the trial Court. The first 
B Appellate Court however remanded the case for fresh trial 
sta,ting that there were certain lacunae which had to be rectified 
and the matter was to be re-examined. Against the order dated 
16.4.2004 the appellant filed a Criminal Revision before the 
High Court. The High Court quashed and set aside the order 
c of remand stating that it was against the settled position of law 
but upheld the judgment of the trial Court. In other words, the 
direction for remand was set aside but there was no 
examination on merits of the various stands taken by the 
appellant. An application was filed for review before the High 
D Court stating that while setting aside the direction for remand 
the High Court had also dismissed the appeal not examining 
the appeal on merits and upheld the conviction as recorded by 
the trial Court. The application as noted above was dismissed. 
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the 
E aiopellant submitted that there is lot of confusion at different 
stages. Firstly, the Appellate Court set aside the order of the 
trial Court and remanded the matter under Section 368(8) of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in 

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