Important Point – Order for retrial of a criminal case is made in exceptional cases.

J.B PARDIWALA, J.:— By this writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 6th April, 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anand in the Criminal Revision Application (Suo Motu) No. 447 of 2009, by which, the learned Sessions Judge ordered retrial of the Criminal Case No. 1894 of 2006, which resulted in acquittal of the petitioner herein, who was one of the accused persons along with the others.

2. The genesis of this litigation lies in the proceedings which were taken up by a Division Bench of this Court in a public interest litigation initiated by the respondent No. 6 herein.

3. I deem fit to give a fair idea of the public interest litigation which was initiated by the respondent No. 6.

4. The respondent No. 6 herein preferred the Special Civil Application No. 2210 of 1993, in public interest, before this Court with a prayer to quash and set aside the resolution dated 4th June, 1991 passed by the Anand Area Development Authority, which was approved by the President, Anand Municipality, Anand, on 12th June, 1991. In the said litigation, it was also prayed that the document entered into between one Jivaben and others with the Senior Assistant of the A.A.D.A, be cancelled. A direction was sought against the respondent No. 4 of that litigation to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the entire plot of land being part and parcel of the Final Plot No. 270 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 4, Anand to the Anand Municipality. It was also prayed that the State Government be directed to take an appropriate action against the erring respondents, including the Revenue Officers involved in the scam.

5. The said public interest litigation came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 23rd April, 2001. I may quote the facts, as recorded by the Division Bench in the judgment, as contained in paras 4, 5, 6, 6.1, 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 8, 8.1 and 9, as under:

“4. The land bearing Survey No. 1934/4, admeasuring about 2-10 acres, which was assessed at Rs. 11-2-0 situated at village Anand, was in the names of Bhaijibhai Nanabhai, Bhathibhai Surabhai etc. before 1958 on new tenure conditions under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Shri. Lallubhai Jenabhai and Mangalbhai Surabhai were in possession of the aforesaid parcel of land and they stated before the Revenue Authority that they had mortgaged the land to Shri. Vajabhai Ramabhai. Thus, the Revenue Authority namely; Prant Officer, Anand, considering the facts and circumstances, arrived at a conclusion that there was a clear breach of condition and, therefore, ordered that the land be forfeited to the Government and entered as Government waste land. The Prant Officer further directed that necessary mutation entry be effected in the village record and entry be made in the New Tenure Land Register. The Prant Officer observed in his order that if original occupants, namely; Bhaijibhai Nanabhai and Bhathibhai Surabhai are willing to get the possession of the land, then, on condition of payment of occupancy price equal to 15 times the assessment plus the cost of trees, huts etc. which was fixed at Rs. 331/- plus local fund, cess thereon, the same be handed over, considering the first default on the part of the original occupants and also as the land was required for cultivation for maintenance of the family. The Prant Officer assessed the amount and granted the land to the original occupants by way of regrant on inalienable and impartible tenure conditions on payment of Rs. 167-14-0 as occupancy price, equivalent to 15 times assessment plus the cost of trees etc. at the rate of Rs. 331/- plus local funds, cess thereon, subject to further conditions, namely; (i) that the grantees shall take soil conservation measures in consultation with the Agriculture Department; (ii) that the grantees shall not allow the land to be uncultivated for the consecuti