Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1197 OF 2002
S.K. MANIRUDDIN ... APPELLANT(S)
:VERSUS:
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
This appeal, by special leave, is directed
against the judgment and order dated 1.2.2002 passed by
the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.R. No.1945/2000.
This is essentially a dispute between the
husband and wife who are the appellant and respondent
No.2 herein. The appellant was originally charged under
Sections 498A, 307 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The
Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
year and a fine of Rs.1000/- for commission of offence
under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
-2-
On an appeal filed by the appellant, the
th
Additional District Judge, 13 Court, South 24-
Parganas, Alipore, by his order dated 18.12.1999 set
aside the order of conviction and remanded the matter
to the Trial Court for retrial after adducing fresh
evidence as regards the place and date of occurrence
only.
The matter again came up before the Trial Court
and the Trial Court by its order dated 15.7.2000 passed
in S.T. Case No.3(4)/97, acquitted the appellant for
want of evidence.
Against the said order of acquittal dated
15.7.2000 passed by the Trial Court, the complainant –
respondent No.2 herein filed a criminal revision before
the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High
Court vide its order dated 1.2.2002 passed in C.R.R.
No. 1945/2000, has set aside the order of acquittal
passed by the Trial Court and remanded the matter to
the Trial Court for decision afresh on a very limited
aspect. The order passed by the learned Single Judge of
the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.
-3-
The High Court has observed as under:
“In view of the order of learned Appellate
Court, the learned Trial Court should have
elicited further inclination of the
prosecution to adduce any evidence and by
simply in a mechanical fashion dubbing 'the
prosecution does not intend to adduce any
other evidence' shutting the door on the face
of the prosecution, was not at all very happy
scene. The learned Trial Court, with due
respect, I venture to say took a very passive
approach and did not involve itself actively
in the remand process to elicit the actual
crux of the matter. Accordingly, I am of the
view, that the matter should be sent on
remand for fresh decision as it is at the
stage of fresh remand as passed by the
learned Trial Court.”
The High Court has noted down the statement of
the learned counsel appearing for the prosecution that
the prosecution does not intend to adduce any other
evidence. Perhaps because the basic dispute is between
the husband and the wife. We find no infirmity in the
stand taken by the prosecution.
In this view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that no useful purpose would be served in
remitting the matter for reconsideration, particularly
when the prosecution is not prepared to adduce any
other evidence in this matter. In this view of the
matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot
be sustained.
-4-
On consideration of the totality of the facts
and circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate
to set aside the impugned judgment and allow this
appeal. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
....................J
(DALVEER BHANDARI)
....................J
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
NEW DELHI,
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009.