Nawab Ali Vs. State of Meghalaya and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 1979.
Petitioner: Nawab Ali
Respondent: State of Meghalaya and Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 1979.
Judges: G.L. OZA & K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 29, 1988
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Acquittal
Respondents-accused acquitted by the Sessions Judge – State filing appeal against acquittal – High Court dismissed the same as the State wanted to withdraw the appeal – Whether an appeal once having been admitted could be dismissed for want of prosecution? – Judgment of acquittal of the Sessions Judge upheld and in view of that the legal question raised by the appellant was not considered – Indian Penal Code, 1860; section 302 read with section 34.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment of the High Court of Gauhati dated March 8, 1979. The respondents accused were tried by Sessions Judge, Shillong for charges under Section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge after detailed discussion of the evidence in the case which mainly is retracted confession, and certain circumstantial evidence came to the conclusion that the offence is not established against the accused persons and therefore recorded the acquittal by his Judgment dated 28th November, 1974. Against this Judgment of acquittal an appeal was preferred by the State of Meghalaya which was initially admitted. On April 7, 1973 it was ultimately dismissed by orders of the High Court dated March 8, 1979, as the State wanted to withdraw the appeal. It is against this order that leave was granted and this appeal is before us. A contention has been advanced that an appeal once having been admitted could not be dismissed for want of prosecution, as the order of the High Court indicates.
2. Having gone through the Judgment of the Sessions Judge and having heard learned counsel for the parties at length on merits of the matter, it does not appear possible that the Judgment of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court could be interfered with. In these circumstances even if the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is accepted, ultimately no purpose would be served as there appears to be no reason to differ from the view taken by the Sessions Judge. In this view of the matter and in view of the time that has elapsed as the respondents-accused were acquitted on November 28, 1974, there is no justification for us to go into the legal questions raised by the appellant. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed.
1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment of the High Court of Gauhati dated March 8, 1979. The respondents accused were tried by Sessions Judge, Shillong for charges under Section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge after detailed discussion of the evidence in the case which mainly is retracted confession, and certain circumstantial evidence came to the conclusion that the offence is not established against the accused persons and therefore recorded the acquittal by his Judgment dated 28th November, 1974. Against this Judgment of acquittal an appeal was preferred by the State of Meghalaya which was initially admitted. On April 7, 1973 it was ultimately dismissed by orders of the High Court dated March 8, 1979, as the State wanted to withdraw the appeal. It is against this order that leave was granted and this appeal is before us. A contention has been advanced that an appeal once having been admitted could not be dismissed for want of prosecution, as the order of the High Court indicates.
2. Having gone through the Judgment of the Sessions Judge and having heard learned counsel for the parties at length on merits of the matter, it does not appear possible that the Judgment of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court could be interfered with. In these circumstances even if the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is accepted, ultimately no purpose would be served as there appears to be no reason to differ from the view taken by the Sessions Judge. In this view of the matter and in view of the time that has elapsed as the respondents-accused were acquitted on November 28, 1974, there is no justification for us to go into the legal questions raised by the appellant. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed.
