LADHA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. a challenge was made to the judgment dtd. 5/2/2014 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore (for short, 'learned appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.22/2013 which was partly allowed and was filed against the judgment dtd. 28/5/2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sanchor, District Jalore (for short, 'learned trial court') in Criminal Original Case No.224/2000 whereby the petitioner was acquitted from the offence under Sec. 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and Sec. 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioner for accusation of committing an offence under Sec. 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and Sec. 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984. After a rigorous trial and waiting for long 13 years, vide judgment dtd. 28/5/2013, the learned trial court did not found the case proved against the petitioner and thus, he was acquitted from the charges by giving benefit of doubt. The said judgment of acquittal came to be assailed by the State by way of filing a criminal appeal before the Sessions Court, vide judgment dtd. 5/2/2014, the learned appellate court has remanded back the matter to the trial court with a specific direction to examine the petitioner under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. on a particular question and then to pass a judgment afresh. The legality, correctness and propriety of the said judgment dtd. 5/2/2014 is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection regarding not seeking explanation under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was never raised at the behest of the petitioner, rather whatever evidence was produced by the prosecution, the learned trial court aptly put the question to the accused while examining him under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., therefore, at the stage of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, the State was not having any legal right to agitate the question of non-asking the pertinent question to the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. He further submits that in the judgment impugned, the learned appellate court has not questioned legality of judgment passed by the learned trial court but simply made the order of remand on the ground of nonputting one particular question to the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the criminal prosecution came to be launched against him way back in the year 2000. He had to face myriad difficulties and rigor for long 13 years and whereafter, due deliberation on the evidence produced at the instance of the prosecution, the learned trial court was of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to place requisite evidence on record which may bring home the guilt of the accused, that is why he was acquitted from the charges. It is further submitted that unless the finding of acquittal is not considered to be perverse or be taken as an outcome of misappropriation of evidence or non-consideration of any statutory provision, the learned appellate court should hesitate or should be slow to interfere in the judgment of acquittal. He further submits that the provisions contained under Ss. 374 and 386 of Cr.P.C. make it abundantly clear regarding the powers to be exercised by the appellate court while dealing an appeal against the judgment of acquittal; and thus it is prayed that impugned judgment dtd. 5/4/2012 passed by learned appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.22/2013 be quashed and set aside.