SUGA RAM ALIAS CHHUGA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(SC)-2006-9-59
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on September 18,2006

SUGA RAM ALIAS CHHUGA RAM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

JEEMON V R VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2012-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
JINRAJ PAPER UDYOG VS. DINESH ASSOCIATES [LAWS(BOM)-2008-11-63] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATBHAI DHANJIBHAI MODI VS. COLLECTOR [LAWS(GJH)-2008-2-221] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL FARUK ABDUL RAHIM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-10-75] [REFERRED TO]
C P AQUACULTURE INDIA PVT LTD VS. PRESIDENT THE CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI [LAWS(MAD)-2010-11-394] [REFERRED TO]
SISTER MINA LALITA BARUWA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-2013-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RAMESH KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2008-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHENNAI DIVISION VS. TVL. BHAGAVANDASS CO. [LAWS(MAD)-2012-1-202] [REFERRED TO]
MERCURIA ENERGY TRADING PTE. LTD. VS. IMAGE MINE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
S. JOHN DE BRITTO VS. SREE GUNDLU MUNESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE TRUST [LAWS(KAR)-2021-11-128] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal is by the informant questioning correctness of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the revision application filed by the appellant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Cr.P.C.) questioning legality and correctness of the order of acquittal passed by the trial court in respect of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The said respondents faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short the IPC) and Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( in short the Atrocities Act). By judgment dated 22.6.2004 the trial court i.e. Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Balotra, District Badmer, Rajasthan held the accused persons to be not guilty and directed their acquittal. State of Rajasthan filed application in terms of Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal. By order dated 29.4.2005 the said application was rejected. Much before on that date i.e. on 20.9.2004, the appellant had filed an application for revision of the order of acquittal. As noted above, by the impugned order the High Court dismissed the revision application on the ground that the States application for grant of leave has been dismissed and therefore the revision petition was not entertainable.
(3.)In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court had summarily rejected the application for grant of leave filed by the State. The order was a non-reasoned, cryptic one and is not sustainable in view of what has been stated by this Court in several cases. In any event, this revision application has been filed earlier, and that should have taken up along with the application for grant of leave. The revision application filed by the appellant cannot be treated as infructuous and not entertainable merely because States application for grant of leave has been rejected. According to learned counsel for the appellant it was imperative on the High Court to indicate reasons as to why the prayer for grant of leave was found untenable. In the absence of any such reasons the order of the High Court is indefensible.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.