Case Note & Summary
The case arose out of a criminal revision filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the acquittal of the accused in a murder case. The incident occurred on 14.02.1988 and the deceased was one Qavi. The trial court acquitted the accused. A distraught brother of the deceased filed a revision application. Initially, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal without hearing the accused because the advocate engaged by the accused had expired. The accused approached the Supreme Court and, by order dated Annexure P13, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court, highlighting that Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 restricts the revisional power from being exercised to the prejudice of the accused without giving them an opportunity of being heard. On remand, the High Court passed the impugned order again remitting the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge to consider afresh the testimony of eyewitnesses, the recoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Chemical Analysis Report, while upholding the finding of the trial court that refused to place any credence on the dying declarations. The accused, aggrieved by this order of remit, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Leave was granted and the matter was heard by a Bench presided over by Justice K. Vinod Chandran. During the pendency, on 17.12.2024, the Court raised a question as to whether a revision petition against an acquittal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code should be placed before a Division Bench or a Single Bench, noticing that the impugned order was passed by a Single Judge. The Court also appointed Ms. Mukta Gupta, Senior Advocate, as amicus curiae for the respondent. The appeal was heard and the judgment was reserved, but the final decision is not captured in the available text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure – Revision – Hearing of Accused – Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – The Supreme Court in an earlier SLP remanded the matter to the High Court, holding that the revisional power cannot be exercised to the prejudice of the accused without affording an opportunity of hearing. The initial order of the High Court setting aside the acquittal without hearing the accused was thus set aside (Para 2). B) Criminal Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Remand to Trial Court – The High Court after remand directed the Additional Sessions Judge to re-evaluate the evidence of eyewitnesses, recoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Chemical Analysis Report, while upholding the trial court's finding on the dying declarations. This order directing fresh consideration was challenged by the accused before the Supreme Court (Para 3). C) Constitutional Law – Court Administration – Single Judge vs. Division Bench – The Supreme Court raised a question whether a revision petition against an order of acquittal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code should be heard by a Division Bench, given that the impugned order was passed by a Single Judge of the High Court (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Validity of High Court's order remitting the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration after upholding the acquittal; whether a revision petition against acquittal under Section 302 IPC must be heard by a Division Bench
Law Points
- hearing requirement under Section 401(2) CrPC
- restitution of acquittal remit order
- classification of benches for revision against acquittal
