Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Acquittal Set Aside: Orders Reconsideration of Acquittal in Fraud Case: Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgement, the judicial bench led by Justice Prakash D. Naik issued a groundbreaking judgment on October 20, 2023, mandating the revaluation of a contentious acquittal in a complex criminal case. The decision, which pertains to various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sets a precedent for revisiting cases of acquittal under specific circumstances.

The judgment stems from an appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused on charges including Sections 181, 420, 465, 468, 471, 406, and 34 of the IPC. The Appellate Court had initially affirmed the acquittal under these sections but also found merit in the application of Section 406 of the IPC against one of the respondents. The revision application sought the overturning of the acquittal and a fresh examination of the evidence.

Justice Naik, in his observation, emphasized the need for a comprehensive reevaluation of the case. He stated, "The evidence on record and the observations of both the Courts and observation of the Appellate Court would indicate that the documents collected by the Investigating Officer referred to herein above were admissible. The Appellate Court has also referred to incriminating evidence against respondent nos. 1 and 2."

The judgment further highlighted the critical nature of intent and evidence in the case, with Justice Naik noting, "Evidence and Intent – Examination of evidence and intention of the accused – Observations by the Appellate Court regarding the admissibility of documents and incriminating evidence – Remand ordered to re-evaluate charges under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, read with Section 34 of IPC – No express findings on the merits of the case."

In a procedural order, the impugned judgment and order were set aside, and directions were issued for the rehearing of appeals before the Sessions Court. Parties involved were instructed to appear before the Appellate Court, with a strict time frame of six months set for deciding the appeals. It was explicitly stated that the court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

This landmark decision has the potential to influence future cases involving reconsideration of acquittals under specific legal provisions. The legal fraternity awaits further developments in this case as it proceeds for fresh consideration before the Appellate Court.

Date of Decision: 20 October 2023

Dr. (Mrs.) Nirmala Jaywant Patil  VS . Mr. Arjitsingh Dattajirao Ghatge,

Latest Legal News