Maniruddin Vs. State of West Bengal & ANR.  INSC 1556 (9 September
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1197 OF 2002 S.K. MANIRUDDIN ...
O R D E R
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.
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.
appeal filed by the appellant, the Additional District Judge, 13th 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.
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.
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
Court has observed as under:
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."
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.
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
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)
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009.