Retrials in criminal cases should only occur in exceptional circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice, not to remedy prosecution deficiencies.

Order :

(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)

1. This revision is directed against the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 by the learned Additional Session Judge Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 17.10.2018 in Criminal Case No. 357/2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) whereby the applicants were prosecuted for the offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Patthalgaon, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) in connection with Crime No. 67/2012, and after trial they were acquitted from the charges after due process of trial. Thereafter, the acquittal order of the applicants was challenged by the respondent No. 1 by filling the appeal under section 378 of Cr.P.C. before the court of Session and the learned First Additional Session Judge allowed the appeal remanded the case for retrial by passing the impugned order.

2. Facts of the present case are that complainant R. P. Kripal Tahsildar made a report on 10.04.2012 against the applicants with the averment that a land of Khasra No. 564/3, 564/4, 564/5 area 0.728, 0.525 and 0.761 Hectare was granted by the Govt. to Rajendra Prasad, Sachindra and Khatibai under the Scheme of Bhudan and without permission of the Govt. with collusion of the Patwari Plasidiyus Toopo the land in question was sold so the FIR has been registered and after investigation charge-sheet is filed.

3. The learned trial court after filling of the charge-sheet framed the charges against the applicants they denied the same and claim to be tried so the learned trial court examine as many as 4 prosecution witness after appreciate the statement / evidence available on record acquitted the applicants from the above mentioned charges vide judgment dated 17.10.2018. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 State file the appeal against the acquittal under section 378 of Cr.P.C. before the ASJ. The learned ASJ allowed the appeal remanded the case for retrial by passing the impugned order and ordered for reexamination of the witnesses.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants have faced the trial as well as appeal for about 11 years and all of sudden the learned appellate court passed the impugned judgment by setting aside the trial court judgment and directed to examine the witness R. K. Kripal, Jivendra Lakda and also proved the document and passed the fresh judgment within a period of 6 months. The remand is not permissible to fill up the lacuna by the prosecution and it is settled principle of law that the benefit of doubt goes to accused but here the learned appellate court remanded the case and directed to reexamine the witness which is not permissible under the law.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for applicant placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nasib Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2022 (2) SCC 89. Learned counsel for applicant also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Ghoshal Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in 2017 (12) SCC 699.

6. Learned State Counsel submits that the judgment of acquittal declared by the trial court on 17.10.2018 is clearly erroneous as it was declared without examination the important evidence and documents available on record. It appears that the decision of acquittal of the trial court dated 17.10.2018 keeping in view of the loss of justice to the prosecution, is set aside and is sent back to the trial court with the direction that the trial court, after providing an opportunity of evidence to the prosecution applicant/witnesses and Investigation OfÏcer on their evidence and the documents submitted by them and after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the respondent/accused, should re-register the Criminal Case No. 357/12 in the criminal register afresh for reconsideration and declare the decision again within six mont