JAGANNATH CHAUDHARY Vs. RAMAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) A significant departure from the regular norm in the matter of pronouncement of judgment is the key factor in the present appeal. Mentioned hereinbefore a significant departure in the matter of pronouncement of judgment - but what is it so significant so as to warrant interference of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution - Before adverting to the same, however, a brief factual reference would be convenient and necessary for appreciation of such a departure - against an order of acquittal recorded by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 1992, a revisional application stands filed before the High Court of Judicature at Patna recording therein that on appreciation of evidence the order, as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, was totally perverse on the face of the judgment. It is on the basis aforesaid, the learned single Judge in the revisional application in his judgment (impugned before this Court) in three different settings in the body of the judgment stated:

(3.) It is this direction as noticed hereinbefore, for writing out a fresh judgment by giving proper judicial mind to the evidence on record and which stands very strongly criticised by the learned senior advocate, Mr. S.B. Sanyal, appearing in support of the appeal and we do find some justification in regard thereto.