Skip to content


Bugtha Simhadri Naidu Vs. Behava Sitharama Patrudu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad1048; 32Ind.Cas.129
AppellantBugtha Simhadri Naidu
RespondentBehava Sitharama Patrudu and ors.
Cases ReferredVellayanambalam v. Solai Servai
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 350, 435 and 439 - de novo trial, if cancels charge previously framed--order subsequently paused in favour of accused, whether amounts to discharge or acquittal--revision against acquittal by private party, whether competent. - .....subsequently is one of acquittal and not discharge. the case should, therefore, be treated as a revision against an acquittal.2. though the high court has power to interfere on revision, the power will only be exercised when the order of acquittal has resulted in grave injustice. i have dealt with the matter fully in vellayanambalam v. solai servai 30 ind. cas. 152; (1915) m.w.n. 540; 28 m.l.j. 692.3. i see no grounds for interference in this case. the magistrate did not believe the prosecution evidence and was of opinion that there was considerable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.4. the petition is dismissed.
Judgment:
ORDER

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. It has been held in Tanguturi Sriramulu v. Nalam, Krishna Row 25 Ind. Cas. 1001; 16 M.L.T. 303; (1914) M.W.N. 646; 27 M.L.J. 589 that the recommencement of a trial under Section 350, Criminal Procedure Code, does not imply the cancellation of a charge already-framed and that an order passed subsequently is one of acquittal and not discharge. The case should, therefore, be treated as a revision against an acquittal.

2. Though the High Court has power to interfere on revision, the power will only be exercised when the order of acquittal has resulted in grave injustice. I have dealt with the matter fully in Vellayanambalam v. Solai Servai 30 Ind. Cas. 152; (1915) M.W.N. 540; 28 M.L.J. 692.

3. I see no grounds for interference in this case. The Magistrate did not believe the prosecution evidence and was of opinion that there was considerable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.

4. The petition is dismissed.


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