GORAKH NIMBA SHIRSAT Vs. GULAB MURLIDHAR DABHOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Advocates for the petitioners, respondent No. 1 and the learned A. P. P. for the State.

(2.) THIS revision is filed by the petitioners against the order of the acquittal of the respondents. The learned A. P. P. supported the petitioner, even though no appeal against acquittal was filed by the State.

(3.) MR. Kankaria appearing for the respondents-accused relying upon three judgments of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1951 (38) S. C. 316 (Logendranath Jha and others v. Shri Polai Lal Biswas), A. I. R. 1951 (38) S. C. 196 (D. Stephens v. Nosibolla), A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 1788 (K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another), contended that in exercise of the revision jurisdiction this Court has no power to convert the acquittal into conviction or to order retrial even if the judgment of the trial Court was found to be perverse. This was the alternative submissions made by Mr. Kankaria because firstly according to him there is no perversity in the impugned judgment. However, since this objection goes to the root of the matter, it is necessary to take into consideration the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court by the three judgments, referred to above.