HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (FROM: NAINITAL)
Zahid And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.
(2.)THE revision is sought to be preferred by the revisionist (complainant) against the judgment and order dated 25.1.2001 passed by 3rd Additional Sess. Judge. Haridwar passed in criminal appeal no. 16 of 1999 by which he allowed the appeal of the appellants (respondent no. 1 to 10) and acquitted them for the offence u/Ss 365 and 368, LPC: after setting aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.3.1999 passed by the Magistrate concerned. Each of them had been convicted by the Magistrate concerned u/Ss 365 and 368 LPC to undergo R. I. for three years.
The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the appellate court recorded acquittal without considering the entire evidence on record and the same is based on surmises and conjectures.
(3.)THE law is well embedded by the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of K. Chimaswamy Reddy u. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788 that interference in revision with an order of acquittal might take place if there is glaring defect of procedure such as the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the Court had shut out some material evidence which the admissible or attempted to take into account the evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. The present case does not fall within the parameters settled by the Supreme Court as set forth above.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.