Multiple independent grounds supporting acquittal cannot be displaced by challenging only the sanction for prosecution.

An acquittal resting on multiple independent grounds cannot be overturned when the appellant challenges only one ground and leaves the others unassailed. The court noted that, apart from the alleged defect in sanction for prosecution, the acquittal was supported by prior acquittals arising from the same and by infirmities in the prosecution evidence. Because those additional findings were not disputed, even a correct sanction would not have displaced the basis for acquittal. The appeal therefore failed on the limited challenge raised, and the acquittal remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal could be interfered with on the sole ground that sanction for prosecution was proper, when the acquittal rested on several independent findings that were not challenged.

Analysis: The acquittal by the appellate court below was founded not only on the alleged defect in sanction but also on other independent grounds, including prior acquittals arising out of the same occurrence and infirmities in the prosecution evidence. The challenge before the Court was confined to the question of sanction, and the remaining reasons supporting acquittal were not assailed. Even if the sanction were held proper, the unchallenged grounds sustaining the acquittal would still remain intact and would prevent conviction.

Conclusion: The appeal could not succeed on the limited challenge raised, and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the acquittal because the decisive findings supporting it were not effectively questioned.

Ratio Decidendi: An acquittal based on multiple independent grounds will not be reversed where the appellant challenges only one ground and leaves the other sustaining findings unassailed.

---