https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301180 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. en-us Thu, 16 Oct 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301180 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Oct 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301180