BINDESHWARI PRASAD SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR

BINDESHWARI PRASAD SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR

The High Court erred in setting aside the order of acquittal and ordering re-trial in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., as there was no manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice in the trial court’s acquittal. Section 401(3) specifically restricts the power to disturb an...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Bindeshwari Prasad Singh; Respondent: State of Bihar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order in Criminal Revision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Revisional Jurisdiction, Appellate Jurisdiction, Acquittal, Re Trial, Benefit of Doubt
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Jurisdiction Acquittal Re Trial Benefit of Doubt

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bindeshwari Prasad Singh

Appellant

State of Bihar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order in Criminal Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal and ordering a re-trial in a revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of the State's appeal against acquittal.
  2. 2 Limits on the High Court's revisional jurisdiction in cases of acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in setting aside the order of acquittal and ordering re-trial in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., as there was no manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice in the trial court’s acquittal. Section 401(3) specifically restricts the power to disturb an acquittal, directly or indirectly. Dismissal of the State’s appeal against acquittal rendered the acquittal final, and revisional jurisdiction should not have been exercised against an accused whose acquittal had attained finality.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside.