PANCHANAN BANERJI Vs. UPENDRA NATH BHATTACHARJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application praying that the acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Judge should be set aside and that certain passages in the judgment, which are against the complainant's character, should be expunged.

(2.) Although the High Court has undoubtedly jurisdiction to set aside an order of acquittal, that power is exercised in rare and exceptional cases. In this case the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the case was a very troublesome and difficult one, and that there was the evidence of one of the prosecution witnesses of a partnership between the accused and the complainant, and as no report was made to the police, the Judge was not satisfied that the accused was bound by any contract to dispose of the articles entrusted to him as declared by the complaisant. He is of opinion that the dispute is really a fit one for the civil Courts. The inference drawn by the Judge from a number of letters and the oral evidence is an inference of fact and it is impossible to say that his conclusion is perverse or even wrong. I cannot, therefore, accede to the prayer for setting aside the acquittal.

(3.) As regards the question of expunction the learned Government Advocate has urged before me that this Court has no jurisdiction to make any such order and cut out the portions from the judgment of the appellate Court. In the Code of Criminal Procedure such power is not conferred in express terms. The question is whether it is within the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to make such an order. Under the old Code there was some conflict of opinion. The Burma Chief Court had in two cases, Emperor V/s. Thomas Pellako [1912] 5 Bur. L.T. 20 and Ma Kya V/s. Kin Lat Gyi [1911] 4 Bur. L.T. 173, expressed the view that such jurisdiction existed.