HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CHAKRABARTI, LAHIRI
SUPDT. AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS TO THE GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
ANWAR ALI SARKAR - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 250 Of 1953
Decided On : JULY 08, 1955
APPEAL - ACQUITTAL - The court held that an appeal by the State Government against an order of acquittal is not maintainable under Article 134 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The State Government applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against certain orders of acquittal passed by the High Court. The acquittals fell into two classes: partial acquittals and complete acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the application to be entirely misconceived and held that it is not maintainable under Article 134 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was whether the State Government was permitted to appeal against an order of acquittal under Article 134 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Government Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkrishna Ganpatrao, which clarified that Article 134 permits an appeal from a judgment of a High Court if the High Court has reversed an order of acquittal and sentenced the accused to death, but does not provide for an appeal if the High Court has reversed an order of conviction and ordered acquittal.
Final Decision: The court rejected the application for leave to appeal, stating that the application must be held to be not maintainable based on the interpretation of Article 134 by the Supreme Court.
( 1 ) THIS is an application by the State Government under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against certain orders of acquittal passed by this Court in an appeal. The acquittals complained of fall into two classes. In certain cases, the accused concerned has been acquitted of certain of the charges of which he had been convicted by the trial court, while his conviction under certain other charges has been maintained. In the case of one accused, however, he has been acquitted altogether. The State Government desires to appeal not only from the order of the complete acquittal, but also from the orders of what I may call, partial acquittals. They have asked for the re-arrest of three persons, of whom one is the accused who has been acquitted altogether. The two others are persons in whose case the convictions of a more serious offence and the higher sentence passed for them have been set aside, while convictions under a less serious offence and the sentence passed therefor have been maintained, but the shorter sentence having already been served, they also have been set at liberty.
( 2 ) IN disposing of the application, it is only necessary to say that it is entirely misconceived. The application has been made in disregard of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the -- State Government Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkrishna Ganpatrao.
( 3 ) DEALING with the question as to whether Article 134 of the Constitution permitted an appeal by the State Government against an order of acquittal, Mahajan, J. as he then was, observed as follows with the complete concurrence of the remaining members of the Bench: "article 134 of the Constitution permits an appeal to this Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death. It does not provide for an appeal from a judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court if the High Court has on appeal reversed an order of conviction of an accused person and has ordered his acquittal. In other words, there is no provision in the Constitution corresponding to Section 417, Criminal P. C. and such an order is final, subject, however, to the overriding powers vested in this Court by Article 136 of the Constitution". Explanation is needless. On the construction put by the Supreme Court on Article 134 of the Constitution of India, this application must be held to be not maintainable.
( 4 ) IT may be said that the terms of Sub-clause (c) of Article 134 are perfectly general, not less general than those of Article 136, and that therefore there is no apparent reason why appeals against acquittals should be regarded as excluded from its purview. It is not open to us to entertain an argument of that kind. We have no right to assume that their Lordships of the Supreme Court overlooked Sub-clause (c) of Article 134 or that having noticed it, they did not intend to pronounce on its effect. They had before them a case in which the High Court had set aside a conviction in an appeal and passed an order of acquittal and they say in the clearest terms that subject to any order that) might be made under Article 136, the acquittal was final. They say further that an appeal against such an order of acquittal does not come under Article 134. When the Supreme Court to which the present (appeal is proposed to be taken has itself said that no appeal would lie in ' such a case under Article 134 we have no jurisdiction to hold to the contrary. The application is accordingly rejected.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.