MANGLI PRASAD Vs. BUDH SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad recommending that the acquittal of Budh Sen, Brahmanand and Babu Ram, opposite parties, be set aside and that a re.trial be ordered. The prosecution ease was that the applicant, Mangli Prasad, was the own cousin of Budb Sen, opposite party. Bramha. nand opposite-party is the son of Budh Sen and Babu Ram opposite party is their 'relation, Mangli Frasad was childless and the opposite parties naturally expected that they would succeed him. Recently, however, Mangli Prasad got his tenancy partitioned and got the name of his Bister's son entered in his khata with the Consent of the zamindars, This annoyed the opposite, parties who felt that their right of sue-cession was jeopardised. Consequently they as-united Mangli Frasad on 27th December 1946, and caused him a number of injuries.

(2.) Evidence was produced before the learo. ed Magistrate by be to the parties. Mangli Prasad does not complain that any part of his evidence was not recorded, The learned Magistrate on a consideration of that evidence came to the conclusion that the case was doubtful and acquitted the opposite-parties. Thereupon Mangli Prasad went in revision to the learned Sessions Judge who has gone into the facts. He has come to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate arrived at wrong findings. He has, therefore, recommended that the acquittal should be set aside as there has been a great miscarriage of justice in this case and a retrial be ordered. It may be mentioned that Mangli Prasad had eight simple injuries on his body, none of which appeared to be of a very serious nature. The only question that arises for determination in this reference is whether this Court should interfere in oases of this kind. A number of autherities have been cited before me from be to sides in this connection.

(3.) The first of these is the case of Nand Ram v. Kazan and another, 19 A. L. J.'r, 589 : (A.I.R. (8) 1921 ALL 266: 22 Or. L. J, 337). That was a case where Nand Earn was grjevously assaulted and as a result of that assault was unconscious for four days. It was held therein that an order of acquittal should (inly be revised in cases where the alleged offence is of a serious character, and a Judge comes to the opinion that there has been a miscarriage of justice, where for instance the lower Court has misquoted the evidence, or where, having evidence before it which prima facie is reasonable and credible the Judge gives no grounds whatever for rejecting it and does not satisfactorily review it. The next case is that of Dhum Bahadur v. Ilori Lai A.I.R. (21) 1934 all 714 : (85 Or, L. J. 1289), This was a case under Section 408, Penal Code, against a karinda. A retrial was ordered and it was said that the power had to be exercised sparingly and with caution. The reason why the power was exercised was that the judgment of the trial Magistrate was'full of surmises and special pleadings. It was said that "the trial Courts are expected to record findings with defmiteness and precision and not to indulge in airy generalities." These two cases show that before this Court will interfere with a finding of acquittal, it has to be satis-fied that the case is of a serious character and there has been a serious miscarriage of justice.