# ManoharLal v. The State

- **Citation:** [1951] 1 S.C.R. 676
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1951-01-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1951
- **Bench:** SHRI liARILAL KANIA c. J, Patanjali Sastri, S. R. Das, VIVIAN BosE
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/manoharlal-v-the-state-194
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), s. 439 (4)-R<vision against
acquittal-High Court's powers-Rer•ersal of findings of facts-
/mpropriety of.
Though sub-s. (I) of s. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code
authorises the High Court to exercise in its discretion any of the
powers conferred on a court of appeal by s. 423, yet sub-s.
( 4)
specifically excludes the power to "convert a finding of acquittal
into one of conviction." This docs not mean that in dealing
with a revision petition by a private party against an
order
of
acquittal, the High Court can in the absence of any error on a
point of law rc·appraisc the evidence and reverse the findings
of facts on which the acquittal was based, provided only it stops
short of finding the accused guilty and passing sentence on him,
by ordering a retrial.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 17 of 1951.
Appeal against a Judgment and Order dated 22nd
January, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at
Patna (Imam J.) in Criminal Revision No. 1533 of 1950.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COl}RT REPORTS
677
S. P. Sinha (P. S. Safeer and K. N. Aggarwal, with
him) for the appellants.
The respondent did not appear.
1951. May 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATANJALI SAsTRI J.-This is an appeal by special
leave from an order of the High Court of Judicature at
Patna setting aside an order of acquittal of the appellants by the Sessions Judge, Purnea, and directing
their retrial.
The appellants were prosecuted for alleged offences
under sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 302 and· 302/149
of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of one Polai
Lal Biswas
who lodged a complaint against _them
before the police. The prosecution case was that, while
the complainant was harvesting the paddy crop on, his
field at about 10 a.m. on 29th November, 1949, ·a mob
of about fifty persons came on to the field armed with
ballams, lathis apd other weapons and that the first
appellant Logendranath Jha, who was leading the mob,
demanded a settlement of all outstanding disputes
with the complainant and said he would not allow
the paddy to be removed unless the disputes were
settled.
An altercation followed a.s a result of which
Logendra ordered
an assault by his men.
Then
Logendra and one of his men, Harihar, gave ballam
blows to one of the labourers, Kangali, who fell down
and died on the spot.
Information was given to the
police who investigated the case and submitted the
charge-sheet.
The committing Magistrate found that
a prima f acie case was made out and committed the
appellants to the Court of Sessions for trial.
The appellants pleaded not guilty alleging inter alia,
that Mohendar and Debender, the brothers of Logendra
(appellants 2 and 3) were not present in the village
of Dandkhora with which they had no concern, as all
the lands in that village had been allotted to Logendra
at a previous partition, that Logendra himself was not
in the village at the time of the occurrence but arrived
1951
Logmdranath
Jha
and Others
v.
Shri Polailal
Biswas.
Patanjali
Sastri J.
1~51
logendranath
Jha
and Others
v.
Shri Polailal
Biswas.
Patanjali
Sastri ].
678
SUPREME COURT lEPORT5
[1951)
soon after and was dragged tQ th!! place at the instance
of his enemies in the village and was
pl~ed under
arrest by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police w!Jo
had arrived there previously.
It was also .alleged that
there were two factions in the village, one of which
was led by one Harimohan, a relation of the complainant, and the other by Logcndra and there had
been numerous revenue and criminal proceedings
and
long-standing enemity between the families of these
leaders as a result of which this false case was foisted
upon the appellants.
The learned Sessions Judge examined the evidence
in great detail . and found that the existence of factions as alleged by the appellants was true. He found,
however, that the appellants' plea of alibi was not
satisfactorily made out, "but the truth of the prosecution'', he proceeded to observe, "can

## Text

1951
ManoharLal
v.
The State.
Bose J.
1951
May 24
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1951]
permfo his rival, who employs perhaps a dozen
mctnbers of his family, to rctnain open, dearly places the
former at a grave commercial disadvantage. To permit
such a distinction might well engender discontent and
in the end react upon the relations between employer
and employed.
All these are matters of policy into
which we cannot enter but which serv.e to justify a
wide and liberal interpretation of words and phrases
in these entires.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellant : Vidya Sagar.
Agent for the;_ respondent : P. A. Mehta.
LOGENDRA NATH JHA & OTHERS
v.
SHRI POLAILAL BISW AS.
[SHRI liARILAL KANIA c. J., PATANJALI SASTRI,
S. R. DAS and VIVIAN BosE JJ.]
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), s. 439 (4)-R<vision against
acquittal-High Court's powers-Rer•ersal of findings of facts-
/mpropriety of.
Though sub-s. (I) of s. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code
authorises the High Court to exercise in its discretion any of the
powers conferred on a court of appeal by s. 423, yet sub-s.
( 4)
specifically excludes the power to "convert a finding of acquittal
into one of conviction." This docs not mean that in dealing
with a revision petition by a private party against an
order
of
acquittal, the High Court can in the absence of any error on a
point of law rc·appraisc the evidence and reverse the findings
of facts on which the acquittal was based, provided only it stops
short of finding the accused guilty and passing sentence on him,
by ordering a retrial.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 17 of 1951.
Appeal against a Judgment and Order dated 22nd
January, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at
Patna (Imam J.) in Criminal Revision No. 1533 of 1950.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COl}RT REPORTS
677
S. P. Sinha (P. S. Safeer and K. N. Aggarwal, with
him) for the appellants.
The respondent did not appear.
1951. May 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATANJALI SAsTRI J.-This is an appeal by special
leave from an order of the High Court of Judicature at
Patna setting aside an order of acquittal of the appellants by the Sessions Judge, Purnea, and directing
their retrial.
The appellants were prosecuted for alleged offences
under sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 302 and· 302/149
of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of one Polai
Lal Biswas
who lodged a complaint against _them
before the police. The prosecution case was that, while
the complainant was harvesting the paddy crop on, his
field at about 10 a.m. on 29th November, 1949, ·a mob
of about fifty persons came on to the field armed with
ballams, lathis apd other weapons and that the first
appellant Logendranath Jha, who was leading the mob,
demanded a settlement of all outstanding disputes
with the complainant and said he would not allow
the paddy to be removed unless the disputes were
settled.
An altercation followed a.s a result of which
Logendra ordered
an assault by his men.
Then
Logendra and one of his men, Harihar, gave ballam
blows to one of the labourers, Kangali, who fell down
and died on the spot.
Information was given to the
police who investigated the case and submitted the
charge-sheet.
The committing Magistrate found that
a prima f acie case was made out and committed the
appellants to the Court of Sessions for trial.
The appellants pleaded not guilty alleging inter alia,
that Mohendar and Debender, the brothers of Logendra
(appellants 2 and 3) were not present in the village
of Dandkhora with which they had no concern, as all
the lands in that village had been allotted to Logendra
at a previous partition, that Logendra himself was not
in the village at the time of the occurrence but arrived
1951
Logmdranath
Jha
and Others
v.
Shri Polailal
Biswas.
Patanjali
Sastri J.
1~51
logendranath
Jha
and Others
v.
Shri Polailal
Biswas.
Patanjali
Sastri ].
678
SUPREME COURT lEPORT5
[1951)
soon after and was dragged tQ th!! place at the instance
of his enemies in the village and was
pl~ed under
arrest by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police w!Jo
had arrived there previously.
It was also .alleged that
there were two factions in the village, one of which
was led by one Harimohan, a relation of the complainant, and the other by Logcndra and there had
been numerous revenue and criminal proceedings
and
long-standing enemity between the families of these
leaders as a result of which this false case was foisted
upon the appellants.
The learned Sessions Judge examined the evidence
in great detail . and found that the existence of factions as alleged by the appellants was true. He found,
however, that the appellants' plea of alibi was not
satisfactorily made out, "but the truth of the prosecution'', he proceeded to observe, "cannot be judged by
the falsehood of the defence nor can the prosecution
derive its strength from the weakness of the defence.
Prosecution must stand on its own legs and must
prove the story told by it at the very first stage. The
manner of occurrence alleged by the prosecution must
be established beyond doubt before the accused persons
can
be
convicted".
Approaching the case in this
manner and seeing that the basis of the prosecution
case was that Polai had batai settlement of the disputed land and had raised the paddy crop which he
was harvesting when the occurrence took place,
the
learned Sessions Judge examined the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses who belonged to the opposite
faction critically and found that the story of the
prosecution was not acceptable. Polai, who was alleged
to have taken the land on batai settlement from his
own maternal grandmother Parasmani who
brought
him. up from his childhood, was only 19 years old and
unmarried and was still living with his grandmother.
He did not claim to be a bataidar of any other person.
"In these circumstances", said the learned Judgci, "it
does not appear to me to be probable that Polai would
have been allowed to maintain himself by running
adhi cultivation of his mamu's land in the lifetime of
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
679
his nani who has brought him up from his infancy like
her own child. Nor does it appeal to me that the unmarried
boy
Polai
would
have
undertaken
upon
himself the task of running batai cultivation of
the
lands of his mamu where he has been living since his
childhood without any trouble, more particularly
in
view of the heavy expenses of cultivation brought out
by the evidence of Tirthanand (P.W. 14)'.'. He, therefore, disbelieved the whole story that Polai had taken
the lands of his grandmother or his uncles as bataidar
for cultivation and that he was engaged in harvesting
the paddy crop on the lands at the -time of the occurrence. This false story, in his opinion, "vitally affected
the prosecution case regarding the alleged manner of
the occurrence".
He also found a number of discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, which, in his view, tended to show
that the prosecution was guilty of concealment of the
real facts.
"In view of such concealment of real facts,"
the learned Judge concluded, "it does not
appear
to
me to be possible to apportion liability and to decide
which of the two parties comll)enced the fight and
which acted in self-defence.
Such being the position,
it is not possible at all to hold either party responsible
for what took place.
In such a view of the matter
coupled with the fact that the manner of occurrence
alleged by the prosecution has not been established to
be true beyond doubt, I think that the accused persons
cannot be safely convicted of any of the offences for
which they have been charged."
The learned Judge
accordingly acquitted the appellants of all the charges.
framed against them.
Against that order the complainant Polai preferred
a revision petition to the High Court under section 439
of the Criminal Procedure Code, The learned Judge
who heard the petition reviewed the evidence at some
length and came to the conclusion that the judgment
of the learned Sessions Judge could not be allowed to
stand as the acquittal of the . appellants was "perverse".
In his opinion, "the entire judgment displays a lack
19,?l
Logllldranalk
]ha
andQthm
v.
Shri Polailal
Biswqs,"
Patanjali
Saslrt J-
1951
Logendranath
]ha
and Others
v.
Shri Polailal
Biswas.
Patanjali
SastrJ J.
680
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1951]
of true perspective in a case of this kind. The Sessions
Judge had completely
misdirected himself in
looking
to the minor discrepancies in the case and ignoring
the essential matters so far as the. case is concerned,"
and there was no justifiable ground for rejecting the
prosecution
evidence regarding
the
cultivation
and
harvesting by Polai. And he concluded- with the warning "I would, however, make it perfectly clear
tl1at
when the case is re-tried, which I am now going to
order, the Judge proceeding with the trial will not be
in the least influenced by any expression of opinion
which I may have given in this Judgment."
On behalf of the appellants Mr. Sinha raised two
contentions.
In the first place, he submitted that
having
regard to section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides for an appeal to the High
Court from an order of acquittal only at the instance
of the Government, a revision petition
under section
439 at the instance of a private party was incompetent,
and, secondly, that sub-section ( 4) of section 439 clearly
showed that the High Court exceeded its powers
of
revision in the present case in upsetting the findings of
fact of the trial Judge. We think it is unnecessary to
express any opinion on the first contention of Mr .. Sinha
especially as the respondent is unrepresented, as we
are of opinion that his second and alternative contention must prevail.
It will be seen from the judgment summarised above
that the learned Judge in the High Court re-appraised
the evidence in the case and disagreed with the Sessions Judge's findings of fact on the ground that they
were perverse and displayed a lack of true perspective.
He went further and, by way of "expressing in very
dear terms as to how perverse the judgment of the
court below is", he indicated that the discrepancies in
the prosecution evidence and the circumstances of the
case which led the Sessions Judge to discredit the
prosecution story afforded no justifiable ground for the
conclusion that the prosecution
failed
to
establish
their case.
We are of opinion that the learned Judge
in the High Court did not properly appreciate the
I
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
681
scope of inquiry in revision against an order of
acquittal.
Though sub-section (I) of
section
439
authorises the High Court to exercise, in its
discretion, any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal
by section 423, sub-section (4)
specifically
excludes
the power to "convert a finding of acquittal into one
of conviction".
This does not mean that in dealing
with a revision petition by a private party against an
order of acquittal the High Court could in the absence
of any error on a point of law re-appraise the evidence
and reverse the findings of facts on which the acquittal
was based, provided only it stopped short of finding
.the accused guilty and passing sentence on him.
By
merely characterising the judgment of the trial Cou~
as "perverse" and "lacking in perspective", the
Hig
Court cannot reverse pure findings of fact based on th
trial Court's appreciation of the evidence in the case!
That is what the learned Judge in the court. below bas
done, but could not, in our. opinion, properly do on an
application in revision filed by a private party against
acquittal. No doubt,
the
learned
Judge
formally
complied with sub-section (4) by directing only a retrial of the appellants without convicting them, and
warned that the court retrying the case should not be
influenced by any expression of opinion contained in
his judgment.
But there can be little doubt that he
loaded the dice against the appellants, and it might
prove difficult for
any
subordinate
judicial
officer
dealing with the case to put aside altogether the strong
views expressed in the judgment as to the credibility
of the prosecution witnesses and the circumstances of
the case in general.
We are of opinion that the learned Judge in the
High Court exceeded his powers of revision in dealing
with the case in the manner he did, and we set aside
his order for retrial of the appellants and restore the
order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge.
Appeal allowed ..
Agent for the appellant: Kundan Lal Mehta.
1951
Log•ndrall4lh
Jha
and Olhm
v.
Shri Polailal
Biswas. ·
Patatifali
Sastri J.