MAKBUL AHMAD MALLIK Vs. ABDUL RAHMAN AKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued at the instance of a person on whose complaint the sessions case was started. The case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Extra Court of 24-Parganas, leading to a majority verdict of not guilty by the Jury, accepted by the learned Judge, and ended in an acquittal of all the accused opposite parties. The Rule was issued by my learned brother P. N. Mookerjee, J. against this acquittal though the local Government has not filed any appeal.

(2.) As during the argument it appears that there is a good deal of confusion as regards the scope of a motion against an acquittal in a criminal case by the Court of Sessions, which might have perhaps resulted in further harassment of accused persons having to appear in this Court to defend themselves after they had defended themselves and spent money in the Magistrate's Court and the Sessions Court, I think it desirable that a few things must be printed out which are well established by uniform Court decisions not only of this High Court, but of other High Courts and which has received the fiat of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

(3.) An acquittal must not be lightly disturbed because there may be a few i's not dotted or t's not cut, a Rule must not be issued in order to put the accused persons into further trouble except on strong grounds. There is a provision for appeal by the local Government in the Code of Criminal Procedure itself and matters of fact which can be well agitated by means of an appeal are not proper subject matter for interference by way of revision. Secondly, it is only under very exceptional circumstances that the verdict of an acquittal by a Jury is interfered with by the High Court, even when there is an appeal by the local Government. This should be remembered when Rules are issued in such cases. It should also be remembered that even in the case of an appeal against a conviction, in a trial by the Judge and Jury, mere misdirection would not result in any interference with the verdict of the Jury accepted by the Judge, and the Court of appeal must further come definitely to the conclusion that in fact there has been caused a failure of justice. It is not sufficient that it has tended or might have tended to cause a failure of justice. The Judicial Committee has made this quite clear now that it must be in fact an actual failure of justice which the appellate Court must be prepared to find before it will interfere, even in an appeal, with the verdict of the Jury. If the present revision petition be tested by any of the well established propositions which I have pointed out, it would be seen that there is nothing for which the revision petition deserved to be succeed.