In a revision under CrPC against acquittal of respondents in a criminal case, the high court held that considering the death of two accused and the time elapsed, it would not be proper to direct a re-trial. The revision application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Tilak 1/3 (202)REVN-163-01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.163 of 2001
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan's College, Andheri, Mumbai .. Applicant Versus Shri Pradeep Mohanlal Desai & ors .. Respondents
Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal i/b Mr.Prakash Naik, Advocate for the applicant. Ms.Megha E. Puralkar i/b Mr.M.M.Khokhawala, Advocate for respondent no.2. Ms.S.S.Kaushik, APP for the Respondent State.
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 24th NOVEMBER 2014. ---
ORAL ORDER:-
1 Heard Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondent no.1.
2 The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the respondent no.2 has passed away on 9th June 2008 itself. The death certificate of the respondent no.2 is tendered by her. The same is taken on record.
3 In view of this, Revision Application stands dismissed as against respondent no.2.
Tilak 2/3 (202)REVN-163-01
4 I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. I have heard Ms.S.S. Kaushik, learned APP for the State. With their assistance, I have gone through the original Record and Proceedings of the trial held by the learned Magistrate. I have glanced through the evidence adduced during the trial.
5 The respondents were prosecuted vide Criminal Case No.38/P/2000 in the Court of Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade in respect of offences punishable under section 120-B of the IPC, 465 IPC, 467 IPC, 468 IPC, 471 IPC, 477(A) IPC, 408 IPC, 201 IPC, 420 IPC and 511 of the IPC.
6 The First Informant in the said case was one Mrs.Urmila Raichur, who was at the material time, working as the Principal in the Bhavan's College i.e. the present applicant. The trial resulted in the acquittal of all the respondents. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant has filed the present revision.
7 It is clear that out of the three witnesses examined during trial, only one i.e. the First Informant Mrs.Urmila Raichur had some knowledge about the facts of the case. However, the evidence given by her was not sufficient to hold any of the respondents guilty of any of the alleged offences. In fact, material evidence was not adduced at all during the trial. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, therefore, does not seem to be suffering from any error, illegality or impropriety. The only question is whether a re-trial should be ordered. I find that two of the three accused i.e. respondent nos.2 and 3 have already passed away.
Tilak 3/3 (202)REVN-163-01
8 Considering that two of the three accused have since died, as also the time gap between the acquittal and today, I do not think it proper to direct re-trial to be held just because it appears that certain evidence which could have been produced by the prosecution, was not produced during the trial.
9 Revision Application is dismissed.
(ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a re-trial should be ordered to set aside the acquittal of respondents in a criminal prosecution.
Whether the Revision Application against an acquittal should be allowed.
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan's College, Andheri, Mumbai
Shri Pradeep Mohanlal Desai
Abhay M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
