https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187550 Under Article 136, the Supreme Court will not ordinarily reappraise evidence or disturb concurrent criminal findings unless illegality, procedural irregularity, breach of natural justice, or gross miscarriage of justice is shown; no such ground was established, so the convictions were left undisturbed. The Court also held that a State appeal against acquittal was competent where the Additional Government Advocate was authorised by notification to act as Public Prosecutor for cases arising in the State, so the objection to presentation of the appeal failed. On the evidence, the findings on common intention, unlawful assembly, murder, and hurt were found sustainable, and the convictions were upheld. en-us Thu, 06 May 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:12:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187550 Under Article 136, the Supreme Court will not ordinarily reappraise evidence or disturb concurrent criminal findings unless illegality, procedural irregularity, breach of natural justice, or gross miscarriage of justice is shown; no such ground was established, so the convictions were left undisturbed. The Court also held that a State appeal against acquittal was competent where the Additional Government Advocate was authorised by notification to act as Public Prosecutor for cases arising in the State, so the objection to presentation of the appeal failed. On the evidence, the findings on common intention, unlawful assembly, murder, and hurt were found sustainable, and the convictions were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 May 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187550