TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was required to assign reasons and consider the complainant's revision along with the State's leave application against acquittal. (ii) Whether a private informant can invoke Article 136 of the Constitution of India against a judgment of acquittal.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court was required to assign reasons and consider the complainant's revision along with the State's leave application against acquittal.
Analysis: The leave application against acquittal was rejected by the High Court by a non-speaking order, and the revision filed earlier by the informant was treated as not entertainable only because the State's leave application had failed. In matters affecting an acquittal, reasons are necessary to show application of mind, to permit effective scrutiny, and to avoid denial of justice. Where both the leave application and the revision were pending, the proper course was to consider them together in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The High Court ought to have given reasons and heard the revision along with the leave application.
Issue (ii): Whether a private informant can invoke Article 136 of the Constitution of India against a judgment of acquittal.
Analysis: Article 136 confers a wide discretionary power on the Court and is not confined to applications by the State. The absence of a statutory appeal by a private party does not limit the Court's power to interfere where a judgment of acquittal results in serious miscarriage of justice. A private party, therefore, is not barred from invoking this extraordinary jurisdiction.
Conclusion: A private informant can maintain an appeal under Article 136 against acquittal.
Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh consideration of the leave application and the revision together, and the challenge succeeded only to that extent.
Ratio Decidendi: An order refusing leave against acquittal must be reasoned, and the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 is available to a private party where necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice.
TaxTMI 
