Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2022 · High Court · 2025

Brief facts of the case

3. Revisionists were accused and they faced trial for offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 IPC and trial court on 17.11.2022 acquitted them but opposite party no.2 filed an appeal before lower appellate court against the judgement and order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the trial court and lower appellate court on 30.06.2023 allowed the appeal filed by opposite party no.2 and set aside the acquittal order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the trial court and remitted back the matter under Section 386(a) Cr.P.C. for inquiry and decision on the application of prosecution dated 13.06.2022 after hearing both the parties. Hence the instant revision. Submissions advanced on behalf of revisionists

4. Learned counsel for revisionists submitted that from perusal of the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the trial court, by which, revisionists were acquitted it appears, it was well reasoned order and after considering the entire evidence available on record court concerned i.e. trial court acquitted the revisionists but in spite of that appellate court allowed the appeal filed by opposite party no.2 and set aside the acquittal order dated 17.11.2022, therefore, committed gross illegality.

5. He further submitted that law is settled that order of acquittal should not be ordinarily interfered unless and until it is against the evidence on record.

6. He further submitted that from the impugned order dated

30.06.2023 passed by the lower appellate court it reflects, only on sole ground that an application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was pending and without disposal of the same trial court decided the trial, therefore, appellate court set aside the acquittal order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the trial court and thus committed gross illegality.

7. He further submitted that from the perusal of the application moved by the prosecution dated 13.06.2022, which has been annexed at page-142 of the paper-book, it reflects, the same was filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examination of certain witnesses and although on same date objection was invited but as application dated 13.06.2022 was moved by the prosecution at very belated stage when the case was at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C., therefore, court proceeded further and at the time of final argument neither opposite party no.2 nor State could point out that application dated 13.06.2022 is still pending. 2 of 6

8. He further submits, therefore, if during pendency of application dated 13.06.2022 trial of the case has been decided then it cannot be said that trial court committed any illegality.

9. He further submits, even from the record of the case it reflects, the trial of the instant matter was pending since the year 1989 and for several years due to non appearance of the prosecution witnesses trial of the case could not be proceeded any further, therefore, under these compelling circumstances on 23.05.2022 trial court closed the opportunity of the prosecution to provide evidence and thereafter trial court proceeded further and this fact is evident from the order- sheet dated 23.05.2022, which has been annexed at page-136 of the paper-book.

10. He further submits, order dated 23.05.2022, by which, opportunity of giving evidence of the prosecution was closed was never challenged before any higher forum either by the State or by opposite party no.2, and at the fag end of trial with the connivance of the opposite party no.2 State filed application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 13.06.2022 only with intention to linger on the proceedings and therefore if without disposal of the same court concerned decided the trial then it cannot be said that trial court committed illegality specially considering the fact that neither State nor opposite party no.2 ever pointed out to trial court that application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution is still pending.

11. He further submitted that revisionists were facing criminal trial since 1989, therefore, if impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the lower appellate court is not set aside then revisionists will suffer irreparable loss and it will be great injustice to them. 3 of 6

12. He further submitted that therefore considering the above facts, impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the appellate court should be set aside. Submissions advanced on behalf of State and opposite party no.2

13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that as trial court while acquitting the revisionists committed gross illegality, therefore, by setting aside the acquittal order, lower appellate court did not commit any illegality.

14. They further submitted that for just decision of the case it was necessary to examine the witnesses for which application was moved by the prosecution on 13.06.2022 but court concerned without even taking any decision on the application dated 13.06.2022 acquitted the revisionists and thus committed gross illegality, therefore, lower appellate court rightly interfered with the acquittal order dated

17.11.2022.

15. They further submitted that therefore instant revision filed by the revisionists is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed. Analysis

16. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

17. From the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the lower appellate court it reflects, the acquittal order passed by the trial court was set aside on the sole ground that during pendency of the trial prosecution moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on

13.06.2022 for summoning of some witnesses and although application dated 13.06.2022 moved by the prosecution was pending but in spite of that trial court decided the trial. 4 of 6

18. From perusal of the record, it reflects, trial of the present matter was pending since the year 1989 and in spite of several opportunities given to the prosecution witnesses they were not appearing before the trial court and after years, ultimately on 23.05.2022 trial court closed the evidence of the prosecution and proceeded further and it reflects that matter was posted for recording the statements of accused i.e. revisionists under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but in the meantime on 13.06.2022 prosecution moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

19. Further, it appears, after moving the application dated 13.06.2022 neither State nor opposite party no.2, who was informant of the case, persuaded the application and therefore it reflects, the application was moved on 13.06.2022 as mere formality. Therefore, in view of this Court, even if without deciding the application dated 13.06.2022 trial court decided the trial then also it cannot be said that trial court committed any illegality.

20. Further, the opportunity of the prosecution to provide evidence was closed by the trial court on 23.05.2022 but neither State nor opposite party no.2 challenged the order dated 23.05.2022 at any higher forum and at the fag end of the trial prosecution moved an application dated 13.06.2022. This fact suggests that the intention of the prosecution was not to call the witnesses for just decision of the case rather the same was only to linger on the proceedings and therefore if in the meantime during pendency of the application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. trial court decided the trial then in view of this Court trial court did not commit any illegality.

21. Further, order of acquittal passed by the trial court is very reasoned order and at the time of recording the acquittal, trial court discussed all the evidence which were available on record. 5 of 6

22. Further, law is settled that however appellate court is having power to reverse the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court but for the same very cogent and overwhelming reasons are necessary and even if two views are possible then also appellate court cannot disturb the findings recorded by the trial court while passing order of acquittal but it appears, lower appellate court while passing the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 failed to consider this well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence and thus committed gross illegality.

23. Therefore, from the discussion made above, in my view, impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the appellate court is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

24. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the lower appellate court is hereby set aside. Instant revision filed by the revisionists stands allowed. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 6 of 6

Brief facts of the case

3. Revisionists were accused and they faced trial for offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 IPC and trial court on 17.11.2022 acquitted them but opposite party no.2 filed an appeal before lower appellate court against the judgement and order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the trial court and lower appellate court on 30.06.2023 allowed the appeal filed by opposite party no.2 and set aside the acquittal order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the trial court and remitted back the matter under Section 386(a) Cr.P.C. for inquiry and decision on the application of prosecution dated 13.06.2022 after hearing both the parties. Hence the instant revision. Submissions advanced on behalf of revisionists

4. Learned counsel for revisionists submitted that from perusal of the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the trial court, by which, revisionists were acquitted it appears, it was well reasoned order and after considering the entire evidence available on record court concerned i.e. trial court acquitted the revisionists but in spite of that appellate court allowed the appeal filed by opposite party no.2 and set aside the acquittal order dated 17.11.2022, therefore, committed gross illegality.

5. He further submitted that law is settled that order of acquittal should not be ordinarily interfered unless and until it is against the evidence on record.

6. He further submitted that from the impugned order dated

30.06.2023 passed by the lower appellate court it reflects, only on sole ground that an application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was pending and without disposal of the same trial court decided the trial, therefore, appellate court set aside the acquittal order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the trial court and thus committed gross illegality.

7. He further submitted that from the perusal of the application moved by the prosecution dated 13.06.2022, which has been annexed at page-142 of the paper-book, it reflects, the same was filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examination of certain witnesses and although on same date objection was invited but as application dated 13.06.2022 was moved by the prosecution at very belated stage when the case was at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C., therefore, court proceeded further and at the time of final argument neither opposite party no.2 nor State could point out that application dated 13.06.2022 is still pending. 2 of 6

8. He further submits, therefore, if during pendency of application dated 13.06.2022 trial of the case has been decided then it cannot be said that trial court committed any illegality.

9. He further submits, even from the record of the case it reflects, the trial of the instant matter was pending since the year 1989 and for several years due to non appearance of the prosecution witnesses trial of the case could not be proceeded any further, therefore, under these compelling circumstances on 23.05.2022 trial court closed the opportunity of the prosecution to provide evidence and thereafter trial court proceeded further and this fact is evident from the order- sheet dated 23.05.2022, which has been annexed at page-136 of the paper-book.

10. He further submits, order dated 23.05.2022, by which, opportunity of giving evidence of the prosecution was closed was never challenged before any higher forum either by the State or by opposite party no.2, and at the fag end of trial with the connivance of the opposite party no.2 State filed application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 13.06.2022 only with intention to linger on the proceedings and therefore if without disposal of the same court concerned decided the trial then it cannot be said that trial court committed illegality specially considering the fact that neither State nor opposite party no.2 ever pointed out to trial court that application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution is still pending.

11. He further submitted that revisionists were facing criminal trial since 1989, therefore, if impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the lower appellate court is not set aside then revisionists will suffer irreparable loss and it will be great injustice to them. 3 of 6

12. He further submitted that therefore considering the above facts, impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the appellate court should be set aside. Submissions advanced on behalf of State and opposite party no.2

13. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that as trial court while acquitting the revisionists committed gross illegality, therefore, by setting aside the acquittal order, lower appellate court did not commit any illegality.

14. They further submitted that for just decision of the case it was necessary to examine the witnesses for which application was moved by the prosecution on 13.06.2022 but court concerned without even taking any decision on the application dated 13.06.2022 acquitted the revisionists and thus committed gross illegality, therefore, lower appellate court rightly interfered with the acquittal order dated

17.11.2022.

15. They further submitted that therefore instant revision filed by the revisionists is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed. Analysis

16. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

17. From the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the lower appellate court it reflects, the acquittal order passed by the trial court was set aside on the sole ground that during pendency of the trial prosecution moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on

13.06.2022 for summoning of some witnesses and although application dated 13.06.2022 moved by the prosecution was pending but in spite of that trial court decided the trial. 4 of 6

18. From perusal of the record, it reflects, trial of the present matter was pending since the year 1989 and in spite of several opportunities given to the prosecution witnesses they were not appearing before the trial court and after years, ultimately on 23.05.2022 trial court closed the evidence of the prosecution and proceeded further and it reflects that matter was posted for recording the statements of accused i.e. revisionists under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but in the meantime on 13.06.2022 prosecution moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

19. Further, it appears, after moving the application dated 13.06.2022 neither State nor opposite party no.2, who was informant of the case, persuaded the application and therefore it reflects, the application was moved on 13.06.2022 as mere formality. Therefore, in view of this Court, even if without deciding the application dated 13.06.2022 trial court decided the trial then also it cannot be said that trial court committed any illegality.

20. Further, the opportunity of the prosecution to provide evidence was closed by the trial court on 23.05.2022 but neither State nor opposite party no.2 challenged the order dated 23.05.2022 at any higher forum and at the fag end of the trial prosecution moved an application dated 13.06.2022. This fact suggests that the intention of the prosecution was not to call the witnesses for just decision of the case rather the same was only to linger on the proceedings and therefore if in the meantime during pendency of the application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. trial court decided the trial then in view of this Court trial court did not commit any illegality.

21. Further, order of acquittal passed by the trial court is very reasoned order and at the time of recording the acquittal, trial court discussed all the evidence which were available on record. 5 of 6

22. Further, law is settled that however appellate court is having power to reverse the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court but for the same very cogent and overwhelming reasons are necessary and even if two views are possible then also appellate court cannot disturb the findings recorded by the trial court while passing order of acquittal but it appears, lower appellate court while passing the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 failed to consider this well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence and thus committed gross illegality.

23. Therefore, from the discussion made above, in my view, impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the appellate court is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

24. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the lower appellate court is hereby set aside. Instant revision filed by the revisionists stands allowed. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 6 of 6