1972 (10) TMI 138 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms Bombay HC's decision on setting aside acquittal in fraud and property cases.

The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court's decision to set aside an order of acquittal in cases involving offenses under section 420 IPC and section ... - Issues:- Setting aside of order of acquittal by Bombay High Court- Validity of compounding of offenses under section 420 IPC and section 13 of Maharashtra Act- Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere with acquittal based on invalid compoundingAnalysis:The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the Bombay High Court's judgment setting aside an order of acquittal in two cases involving offenses under section 420 IPC and section 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act. The complaints alleged that the accused had agreed to sell or transfer properties but failed to deliver possession despite receiving payment. The trial magistrate initially acquitted the accused after an agreement between the parties, but later, respondent No. 1 filed for contempt as the agreement terms were not fulfilled. The High Court, while dismissing the contempt application, set aside the acquittal and directed the trial magistrate to proceed with the trial. The Supreme Court noted that the offense under section 420 IPC is compoundable with court permission, whereas the offense under section 13 of the Maharashtra Act is not compoundable. The Court highlighted the definitions and requirements under the Maharashtra Act related to promoters and agreements for sale of flats. It emphasized that failure to comply with these provisions constitutes an offense under section 13 of the Act. The Court referred to the case law indicating circumstances where an order of acquittal can be set aside, including instances of invalid compounding of offenses.The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal as it was based on the invalid compounding of offenses. The Court clarified that where an offense is not compoundable, an acquittal based on compounding is not in accordance with the law. The Court explained that the High Court's revisional powers allow it to interfere with such acquittals. The Court rejected the argument that the High Court should not have interfered with the acquittal related to the offense under section 420 IPC, stating that without valid permission for compounding the offense under section 13 of the Maharashtra Act, the entire permission is considered invalid. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming the setting aside of the acquittal in both cases.In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment clarified the legal principles regarding the compounding of offenses, the jurisdiction of the High Court to set aside acquittals based on invalid compounding, and the implications of non-compoundable offenses under specific statutes like the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act. The detailed analysis provided insight into the application of relevant laws and precedents in determining the validity of the Bombay High Court's decision in the context of the present case.