Joint appeal against a common acquittal of jointly tried accused was maintainable under the criminal procedure framework.

A joint appeal by the State against a common acquittal order of several accused tried jointly was held maintainable. The Court read the Code of Criminal Procedure with Rule 6 of Chapter XXVI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules and found no prohibition against one appeal covering all accused acquitted by the same judgment. Section 419 did not bar that course, and Sections 258, 410, 417 and 423 disclosed no contrary restriction. Rule 6 was construed liberally as a procedural provision supporting the competence of a joint appeal. The High Court was therefore wrong to reject the appeal summarily.

---

---

Issues: Whether a joint appeal by the State against a common order acquitting several accused persons tried jointly was maintainable.

Analysis: The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 6 of Chapter XXVI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules were examined together. The statutory scheme did not disclose any prohibition against one appeal covering all accused who had been acquitted by the same judgment. Section 419 of the Code was held not to bar such a course, and Sections 258, 410, 417 and 423 were also found not to indicate any contrary restriction. Rule 6 was treated as a procedural rule intended to facilitate justice and, on a liberal construction, as supporting the competence of a joint appeal. The earlier decision relied upon by the High Court was distinguished.

Conclusion: A joint appeal by the State against the acquittal of several accused persons tried jointly was maintainable and the High Court erred in rejecting it summarily.

---