State of U.P. Vs. Bal Mukund & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 708/2000.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.1999 in GA 1506/99 of The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.1999 in GA 1506/99 of The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
Petitioner: State of U.P.
Respondent: Bal Mukund & Ors.
Apeal: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 708/2000.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.1999 in GA 1506/99 of The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.1999 in GA 1506/99 of The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
Judges: G.B.PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 13, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Mr. A.S. Pundir, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article 136 – Murder case- Accused acquitted – High Court refusing leave to file appeal – Sessions Judge giving good reasons to disbelieve the witnesses. Held that State could not move without applying the mind.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard.
2. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
3. The State of Uttar Pradesh has come up in appeal against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court refusing leave to file appeal in a matter where the Sessions Judge has recorded an order of acquittal on the ground that while refusing leave the High Court has not given any reason. Undoubtedly, there is a judgment of this Court which says that the High Court while refusing leave shall indicate reason, but that by itself ought not to have been the basis for filing leave to file appeal to this Court without examining the merits of the judgment of acquittal. In the case in hand, the two eye-witnesses have been believed by the learned Sessions Judge giving many reasons and each one of them must be held to be a good and germane reason for which the Ses-sions Judge rightly disbelieved their testimony. We fail to understand how the State of Uttar Pradesh is filing Special Leave Petition against such decision without applying its mind to the merits of the judgment in question.
1. Heard.
2. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
3. The State of Uttar Pradesh has come up in appeal against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court refusing leave to file appeal in a matter where the Sessions Judge has recorded an order of acquittal on the ground that while refusing leave the High Court has not given any reason. Undoubtedly, there is a judgment of this Court which says that the High Court while refusing leave shall indicate reason, but that by itself ought not to have been the basis for filing leave to file appeal to this Court without examining the merits of the judgment of acquittal. In the case in hand, the two eye-witnesses have been believed by the learned Sessions Judge giving many reasons and each one of them must be held to be a good and germane reason for which the Ses-sions Judge rightly disbelieved their testimony. We fail to understand how the State of Uttar Pradesh is filing Special Leave Petition against such decision without applying its mind to the merits of the judgment in question.
