Skip to content


State of Orissa Vs. Chakrapani Prusti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberGovernment Appeal No. 47 of 1979
Judge
Reported in56(1983)CLT457; 1984(I)OLR38
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
AppellantState of Orissa
RespondentChakrapani Prusti
Appellant AdvocateS.K. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel
Respondent AdvocateH.B. Swain, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredSolanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat).
Excerpt:
.....of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the..........version that the respondent had not been dealing in this commodity.2. the appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against the order of acquittal, has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach a conclusion that upon such evidence, the order of acquittal should be reversed. however, in exercising that power, the appellate court should give proper weight and consideration to the following matters: (1) the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and (4) the slowness of the appellate court in.....
Judgment:

B.K. Behera, J.

1. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both the sides., I find no case for interference with the impugned judgement and order of acquittal recorded by the trial court holding the respondent to be not guilty of the charge under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clauses 3 and 14 (1) of the Orissa Cement Control Order, 1976 wrongly mentioned in the first information report, charge und judgment as sections 3 and 14 (a) of the Cement Control Order as an order would contain clauses and not satutory sections for carrying on business in cement without a licence and acquiring and holding a stock of 283 bags of cement without being a stockist. It had not been established by the prosecution that the godown in which cement had been stocked belonged to the respondent, as rightly held by the trial court with reference to the evidence and it justifiably accepted the defence version that the respondent had not been dealing in this commodity.

2. The appellate Court, while dealing with an appeal against the order of acquittal, has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach a conclusion that upon such evidence, the order of acquittal should be reversed. However, in exercising that power, the appellate Court should give proper weight and consideration to the following matters: (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and (4) the slowness of the appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact. The order of acquittal is not to be disturbed if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record. (See AIR 1983 Supreme Court 484 Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat).

In the instant case, a reasonable view has been taken by the court of trial on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and no interference is called for.

3. The appeal fails and is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //