Joint criminal appeal against multiple acquittals held incompetent where separate acquittals require individual appeals.

A joint criminal appeal by the State against the acquittal of several accused was held incompetent because each acquittal is a separate order and the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for a single appeal that could result in partial dismissal or partial abatement. The Court also reaffirmed that binding law comes from the Supreme Court, not earlier High Court decisions, and applied that principle to reject the appeal at the threshold for want of maintainability.

---

---

Issues: Whether a single appeal by the State against the acquittal of several accused persons is maintainable under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Analysis: The appeal was treated as involving separate acquittal orders against each accused. The procedural scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code was read as requiring individual appeals, since each acquittal is a distinct order and the appellate provisions do not contemplate a joint appeal that may lead to partial dismissal or partial abatement. The Court also held that earlier High Court decisions could not override the Judge's duty to decide according to the Indian Constitution and laws, and that only the declaration of law by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts. On that basis, and following the Supreme Court's declaration against partial dismissal in criminal appeals, the Court concluded that a joint appeal against multiple acquittals was incompetent.

Conclusion: A single appeal against the acquittal of several persons was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed at the threshold for want of maintainability and stood rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of any provision in the Criminal Procedure Code permitting a joint criminal appeal against separate acquittals, and where partial dismissal or partial abatement would be inconsistent with the appellate scheme, such a joint appeal is incompetent.

---