Skip to content


ismail Noor Mohammed Vs. Khoja Habibhai Zaverbhai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Appl. Nos. 22 and 254 of 1960 (Bom. Crl. Rev. Appln. No. 2013 of 1959)
Judge
Reported inAIR1960Guj48; 1960CriLJ1593; (1960)GLR127
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 439 and 439(4)
Appellantismail Noor Mohammed
RespondentKhoja Habibhai Zaverbhai and anr.
Appellant Advocate R. Barot, Adv.; H.M. Chokshi, Government Pleader
Respondent Advocate Z. Bootwala, Adv.
Cases ReferredMotiram v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- .....judicial magistrate, first class, radhanpur acquitted him in criminal case no. 49 of 1949, and the revision application was filed before the bombay high court which was no. 2013 of 1959. if that application, it was ordered by the high court of bombay that a revision application should befouled before the sessions judge and the matter was sent back. a revision application had accordingly been filed before the sessions judge, who has, however, dismiss it. the complainant has therefore made another application before the gujarat high court which is no. 254 of 1960.(2) in both these petitions the prayer is that the acquittal of opponent no. 1 under s. 498, i. p. c., should be set aside an he should be convicted under s. 408, i. p. c. the learned sessions judge agreed with the finding of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

(1) These revision applications are in respect of an acquittal of one Khoja Habibhai Zavebhai, which was charged under S. 408, I. P. C. The learned judicial Magistrate, First Class, Radhanpur acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 49 of 1949, and the Revision application was filed before the Bombay High Court which was No. 2013 of 1959. If that application, it was ordered by the High Court of Bombay that a revision application should befouled before the Sessions Judge and the matter was sent back. A revision application had accordingly been filed before the Sessions Judge, who has, however, dismiss it. The complainant has therefore made another application before the Gujarat High Court which is No. 254 of 1960.

(2) In both these petitions the prayer is that the acquittal of opponent no. 1 under S. 498, I. P. C., should be set aside an he should be convicted under S. 408, I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the finding of the trying Magistrate that the accused was a partner of the complainant. But he was of the view that there was not a shadow of doubt that the finding of acquitted which was recorded by the learned Magistrate was wrong and that the case ought to have ended to the conviction of the accused under S. 408 I. P. C. The learned counsel for the applicant has conceded that in view of sub-section (4) of S. 439, Cr. C. P. C., it is not open to the High Court under that section to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. His prayer is merely therefore that the High Court should order a re-trial. he has however conceded that there is no irregularity or defeat in the trial. But his contention is that although there is no irregularity or defect in the trial, the order acquitting the accused is a perverse one, and a retrial should be ordered on that ground. In view of the fact that there is no irregularity or defect is the trial, it would be most irregular for the High Court to order a re-trial. No authority is pointed out for his proposition that even if there is no irregularity or defect in the trial, a re-trial may be ordered. I may, however, refer to Motiram v. Emperor to : AIR1936All758 , where the country proposition was laid down as follows:-

'An appellate Court has a power to order a re-trial but it can pass such an order only upon proper grounds such as the ground that the original trial has been vitiated by some irregularity. As appellant Court is not entitled to order a re-trial merely because it disagrees with the finding of the lower court that the accused had not committed the more serious offence but a lesser offence'.

The prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant that the High Court should order a re-trail in this case is therefore rejected, and Criminal Revision Application No. 22 of 1960 is rejected, Criminal Revision Application No. 254 of 1960 is rejected summarily.

(3) Revision rejected.


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