We were satisfied with the verdict of lower court, but the convict appealed to district court and again went in bail. The Supreme Court has cautioned that it is incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of such acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The above given categories were also referred to in the case of Akalu Ahir and Others v. The limitation imposed by S. Conclusion The powers conferred on the High Court under Section 401 are very broad and comprehensive. Authority of the Courts exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent such abuse. If the trial court had refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, the appellate court may admit such evidence.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. Article 124 of Indian constitution says that there shall be a Supreme Court of India its constitutional powers and jurisdictions have been defined from article 124-147. The powers conferred on him under Section 401 cannot be in any way fettered by the provisions of Section 397 under which the records have been called for. The facts and pronouncement in Bani Singh cannot be extrapolated to the factual matrix before us. As my evidences are stronger the S. Signally, the Court had observed that in order to enforce discipline the appeal could be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Where the appeal Court wrongly ruled out evidence which was admissible, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal in revision, so that the evidence may be reappraised - after taking into account the evidence which was wrongly ruled out as inadmissible. Power is not to be resorted to if there is specific provision in code for redress of grievances of aggrieved party 2. Order 41 Rule 32 and 33 C. The argument that the High Court was duty-bound to appoint an amicus curiae is not legally sound. And if the convicted failed to pay the fine he should stay two more months punishment. It is not permissible for the High Court to quash an F. For this purpose our constitution has set up a hierarchy of courts.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. In Revision the court can interfere, if the case brought before it is a decided case by subordinate court, and when the same is not appealable. But, there are decisions galore to the effect that where the allegations made in the F. The purpose is to rectify miscarriage of justice. All other appellate courts other than a High Court have duty to record reason for its decision while it is even appreciable to do so.
Therefore, where the accused was acquitted by the trial court on the ground that he was insane, the passing of an order under Section 335 by the High Court in revision does not amount to an alteration of an order of acquittal into one of conviction. Generally speaking the bar put on revision of an interlocutory order under Sec. The authority of appellate courts to review a decisions of lower courts varies widely from one jurisdiction to another. It is the duty of the jail officer to forward such appeal to an appropriate court. On perusal of the judgment under appeal, I find no merit in the case.
Whether substantial justice has been done is the main consideration. The existence of the alternate remedy of appeal or revision or of discharge at the stage of framing charge may not be a bar to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr. This places limitation on the power of the High Court to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. Only grave injustice manifest on record can induce the Supreme Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of guilt of Courts below. Section 4 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 provides that no document chargeable with court fee under the act shall be filed or recorded on any court of justice, unless the requisite court fee is paid. Nirmal Singh Bittu and another, it was submitted before the Supreme Court that as the complainant had approached the High Court in revision and as under the revisional power available to the High Court under Section 401, Cr. An appeal under Section 377 must be filed by the State within a period of 60 days and the contention of the State that it was under a mistaken belief that period of limitation is ninety days would be no excuse for condonation of the delay.
The Bench overruled the observations in the dismissal order passed in Ram Naresh Yadav v. English: The supreme court of india. Ergo, the High Court can, while exercising inherent powers in its criminal jurisdiction, take all necessary steps for enforcing compliance of its orders. . In Bani Singh attention of the Court was not drawn to the views of a Coordinate Bench in Kishan Singh decided four years previously on 2. We reiterate that there is an alarming and sinister increase in instances where convicts have filed appeals apparently with a view to circumvent and escape undergoing the sentences awarded against them. The restrictions on the inherent powers are not there because they are controlled by the provisions of the Code, but because of the fact that it shall be presumed that the procedure provided by the legislature is dictated by ends of justice.
The accused must be heard and his appearance must be ensured while disposing of the appeal. Delay in conclusion of trial without any fault of the accused person violates his right to speedy trial guaranteed by the Constitution and therefore continuance of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Sub-section 3 provides a limitation that once a revision has been filed by one party and it has been heard by a competent Court, then later on that party cannot file a second revision petition in any Court. As soon as judgment is pronounced against party, right to appeal arises. Bani Singh, a Three Judge Bench decision, posits that if an appeal is not dismissed summarily, then the Appellate Court should, after perusing the records, hear the Appellant or his pleader. Application under Section 482 Cr.