HIGH COURT OF KERALA
STATE OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE State has filed this application under Art. 134 (1 ) (c) of the Constitution for a Certificate that the order of acquittal passed by this court in Criminal Appeal 31 of 1961 confirming the order of acquittal passed by the first Class Magistrate of Trichur in Calendar Case No. 145 of 1954 is fit matter to be taken up in appeal to the supreme Court.
(2.) THE respondents were charged that they in their capacity as Agent and Cashier of the Merchants Bank of India Limited, Trichur branch were entrusted with money and that on 16-1-53 they misappropriated an amount of Rs. 8004-4-0 and to cover up the fraud they falsified the accounts, offences punishable under S. 409 and 477-A, I. P. C. THE learned Magistrate on a detailed analysis of the evidence adduced in the case found that entrustment and misappropriation had not been satisfactorily proved and passed orders acquitting both the accused. On appeal this court, on an independent appraisal of the evidence, was also of opinion that entrustment had not been conclusively established and that the view taken by the learned Magistrate was not so unreasonable or perverse as to merit interference and confirmed the order of acquittal.
In State Government M. P. v. Ramakrishna (AIR. 1954 SC. 20) the question regarding the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 134 and 136 of the Constitution came up for consideration and their Lordships stated: "in the case of an order of acquittal where the presumption of the innocence of an accused person is reinforced by that order, it seems to us that the exercise of this jurisdiction would not be justified for merely correcting errors of fact or law of the High Court. An occasion for interference with an acquittal order may arise, however, where a High Court acts perversely or otherwise improperly or has been deceived by fraud. "
In another case, Sideswar Ganguly v. State of West Bengal (AIR. 1958 SC. 143) while considering the sustainability of a certificate under art. 134 (1) (c) granted by the Calcutta High Court, his Lordship Sinha , C. J. , stated: ""certifying" is a strong word and therefore, it has been repeatedly pointed out that the High Court is in error in granting a certificate on a mere question of fact, and that the High Court is not justified in passing on an appeal for determination by this court when there are no complexities of law involved in the case, requiring an authoritative interpretation by this court. "
(3.) SO, in a case where the High Court has confirmed an order of acquittal, it will not be proper to grant a certificate under Art. 134 (1) (c) unless the case involves questions of law of such complexity that require elucidation and an authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court. This case involves no such exceptionally difficult questions of law. I am, therefore, unable to certify that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. The petition is dismissed. Dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.