S.P. Bharucha, S.N. Phukan and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ. - (1.) THESE appeals arise upon judgments of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka.
(2.) THE appellants in these appeals were accused of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Long delays in the prosecutions having taken place, they sought acquittal from the trial court. The trial court granted such acquittal. The State preferred appeals against the orders of acquittal. The learned Single Judge, by the orders under challenge, set aside the orders of acquittal and restored the cases to the trial court for fresh disposal. It is common ground that the learned Judge allowed the appeals in the High Court without so much as issuing notice to the accused (tire appellants before us). Upon this ground alone, of want of notice, the present appeals could be allowed and the appeals before the High Court restored to its file for fresh disposal after notice to the accused, but it was felt that a question arose in these appeals which was likely to arise in many more and, therefore, they should be heard on their merits.
(3.) THE question is whether the earlier judgments of this Court, principally, in Common Cause v. : 1996CriLJ2380 , Common Cause v. : AIR1996SC3538 , Raj Deo Sharma v. : 1998CriLJ4596 and Raj Deo Sharma (II) v. : 1999CriLJ4541 , would apply to prosecutions under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other economic offences.;