Ismail Noor Mohammed vs Khoja Habibhai Zaverbhai and Another

(1) These revision applications are in respect of an acquittal of one Khoja Habibhai Zavebhai, which was charged under S. 408, I. P. C. The

learned judicial Magistrate, First Class, Radhanpur acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 49 of 1949, and the Revision application was filed before

the Bombay High Court which was No. 2013 of 1959. If that application, it was ordered by the High Court of Bombay that a revision application

should befouled before the Sessions Judge and the matter was sent back. A revision application had accordingly been filed before the Sessions

Judge, who has, however, dismiss it. The complainant has therefore made another application before the Gujarat High Court which is No. 254 of

1960.

(2) In both these petitions the prayer is that the acquittal of opponent no. 1 under S. 498, I. P. C., should be set aside an he should be convicted

under S. 408, I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the finding of the trying Magistrate that the accused was a partner of the

complainant. But he was of the view that there was not a shadow of doubt that the finding of acquitted which was recorded by the learned

Magistrate was wrong and that the case ought to have ended to the conviction of the accused under S. 408 I. P. C. The learned counsel for the

applicant has conceded that in view of sub-section (4) of S. 439, Cr. C. P. C., it is not open to the High Court under that section to convert a

finding of acquittal into one of conviction. His prayer is merely therefore that the High Court should order a re-trial. he has however conceded that

there is no irregularity or defeat in the trial. But his contention is that although there is no irregularity or defect in the trial, the order acquitting the

accused is a perverse one, and a retrial should be ordered on that ground. In view of the fact that there is no irregularity or defect is the trial, it

would be most irregular for the High Court to order a re-trial. No authority is pointed out for his proposition that even if there is no irregularity or

defect in the trial, a re-trial may be ordered. I may, however, refer to Motiram Vs. Emperor, , where the country proposition was laid down as

follows:-

An appellate Court has a power to order a re-trial but it can pass such an order only upon proper grounds such as the ground that the original trial

has been vitiated by some irregularity. As appellant Court is not entitled to order a re-trial merely because it disagrees with the finding of the lower

court that the accused had not committed the more serious offence but a lesser offence"".

The prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant that the High Court should order a re-trail in this case is therefore rejected, and Criminal

Revision Application No. 22 of 1960 is rejected, Criminal Revision Application No. 254 of 1960 is rejected summarily.

(3) Revision rejected.