Skip to content


The Public Prosecutor Vs. K. Sinnappa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 645 of 1948
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Mad767
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 239
AppellantThe Public Prosecutor
RespondentK. Sinnappa and ors.
Appellant AdvocateAsst. Public Prosecutor
Respondent AdvocateG. Balaparameswari Rao, Adv. for ; P. Suryanarayana, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....the several accused were put up for trial. the magistrate tried these cases separately but at the defence stage clubbed them all together and finally acquitted them.3. it is contended by the public prosecutor that the clubbing together at the defence stage is illegal and on that main ground seeks to set aside the order of acquittal. the magistrate should have made up his mind whether to try them all together or not before the commencement of the cases. not having done so then it is not open to club these cases after the evidence of the witnesses were (sic) recorded and at the defence stage. the order of acquittal is therefore set aside.4. the next question is whether retrial of the accused should be ordered. the offence was on 15th november 1947 and at this distance of time and in view.....
Judgment:

Somasundaram, J.

1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the accused in 45 cases tried by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Alur.

2. Forty-five cases were put up against 45 different accused for offences under the Prohibition Act. On 15th November 1947 there was a general raid by the officers of the Prohibition party as a result of which the several accused were put up for trial. The Magistrate tried these cases separately but at the defence stage clubbed them all together and finally acquitted them.

3. It is contended by the Public Prosecutor that the clubbing together at the defence stage is illegal and on that main ground seeks to set aside the order of acquittal. The Magistrate should have made up his mind whether to try them all together or not before the commencement of the cases. Not having done so then it is not open to club these cases after the evidence of the witnesses were (sic) recorded and at the defence stage. The order of acquittal is therefore set aside.

4. The next question is whether retrial of the accused should be ordered. The offence was on 15th November 1947 and at this distance of time and in view of the fact that the accused have been put to considerable expense and worry of a trial and an appeal against acquittal, I do not think that ends of justice require that they should be put on trial again. There will therefore be no retrial.


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