JAIRAM Vs. MANGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected, applications by Jairam for special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal under Section 417 (3), Criminal P. C.

(2.) THE facts, which have led to these applications, are briefly these : Jairam filed a complaint against eleven accused persons, nine of whom are opposite parties in these two applications. Ths Magistrate convicted five out of the eleven persons, namely Bhera, Ramnath, Prabhu, Umeda and Rawat. Four were acquitted namely Mangla, Hardin, Jumar and Chainsingh. There was an appeal to the, Sessions Judge by the five accused who were convicted, and the Sessions Judge acquitted these five also. Thus nine out of the eleven persons were acquitted. We are not concerned in these applications with the remaining two, as one of them died during the pendency of the trial, and the other was prosecuted by the police, and Section 417 (3) does not apply to his case.

(3.) AS these applications are the first of their kind to come up before this Court, we think it right that we should lay down certain principles on which such applications should be dealt with. The attack on an acquittal may be either on grounds of law or on facts. Where the attack is on grounds of law, two contingencies may arise, namely (1) the point of law involved may be a new one not previously settled by authority, in which case this Court would generally grant special leave, if it appears to it that the point has been wrongly decided, and has affected the result of the case : (2) the point may not be a new one, and may be settled by authority; but the lower court has decided it wrongly, and the wrong decision has affected the result of the case. In these circumstances also this Court will be prepared to grant leave to appeal.