BUGTHA SIMHADRI NAIDU Vs. BEHAVA SITHARAMA PATRUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It has been held in Tanguturi Sriramulu v. Nalam, Krishna Row 25 Ind. Cas. 1001; 16 M.L.T. 303; (1914) M.W.N. 646; 27 M.L.J. 589; 15 Cr. L.J. 673; 38 M. 585 that the recommencement of a trial under Section 350, Criminal Procedure Code, does not imply the cancellation of a charge already-framed and that an order passed subsequently is one of acquittal and not discharge. The case should, therefore, be treated as a revision against an acquittal.

(2.) Though the High Court has power to interfere on revision, the power will only be exercised when the order of acquittal has resulted in grave injustice. I have dealt with the matter fully in Vellayanambalam v. Solai Servai 30 Ind. Cas. 152; (1915) M.W.N. 540; 28 M.L.J. 692; 16 Cr. L.J. 600.

(3.) I see no grounds for interference in this case. The Magistrate did not believe the prosecution evidence and was of opinion that there was considerable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.