STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. ABDULSAB IMAMSAB MAKANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Addi SPP on merits. As we are duty bound to do out of a sense of responsibility also, we have carefully perused the judgment and the records for two reasons, the first being that if on the face of the offences serious or otherwise the acquittal order is wrongly recorded for whatever reason, we consider ourselves duty bound to rectify that situation as otherwise absolutely wrong signals will be sent out with regard to the working of the justice disposal machinery. Also, this Court owes a responsibility to ensure that no appeals are wrongly entertained. In those of the cases were, after the entire trauma of a trial the accused have been acquitted and where the record does not justify any interference with that order merely because the state has presented an appeal against the acquittal, if that appeal is thoughtlessly admitted, it involves one more round of litigation and apart from the load it imposes on the judiciary the respondent-accused has to undergo the ordeal right through the pendency of that appeal till its disposal. We have to be very circumspect in exercising the option of admitting the appeals against acquittal orders and prune those cases which are hopeless and where no interference is called for the appeals are being disposed of strictly at the admission stage itself. While in those of the orders which require correction. We have to corrected there at this stage itself.

(2.) WE have come across one disturbing phenomena which is that there are a number of cases in which there is absolutely no justification for, even recommending the appeal against an order of acquittal the reason being that there is not even a semblance of a case made out by the prosecution which can justify a conviction. Even in the border line cases because the state genuinely feels that a reconsideration is necessary and we have to apply our minds filing of an appeal may be pardonable. This principal will not hold good in those of the instances where there is virtually Zero evidence, in those of the cases where the record is in total shambles and irresponsible or mechanical resolutions are passed by the Law Department for filing of the appeals. We do understand that once such a direction comes from the Law Department that the officer of the Advocate General is absolutely helpless and is required to file an appeal because of this wrong attitude of the Law Department.

(3.) THERE are procedures prescribed for the Law Department to examine each and every case carefully and on merits. There are judicial officers who are entrusted for this purpose and we assume that those officers are of sufficient competence and are being assigned for purpose of doing this scrutiny. It is important to record that as far as criminal proceedings are concerned the majority of them particularly sessions cases are disposed of by Senior and experienced judicial officers and the question arises as to whether the reappraisal of this judgment and orders is being done by the persons of sufficient seniority and competence or whether in fact the position is otherwise.