Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NURUL ISLAM VS Respondent: SAIBUDDIN
P L D 1956 Dacca 188
P L D 1956 Dacca 188
Before Ellis C. J. and Badiuzzaman, J
NURUL ISLAM‑Complainant
versus
SAIBUDDIN and others‑Accused
Reference No. 101, of 1954, decided on 28th July 1954.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
---S. 439‑Application,
The Revisional Jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 439 of the Criminal P. C. is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal against which the Government has a right of appeal under section 417 of Criminal P. C. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or for the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower Court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.
A. Salam in Opposition to the Reference.
'No one in. support of the Reference.
JUDGMENT
ELLIS, C. J.‑‑This is a reference by Mr. A. O. R. Rahman, Additional‑‑ District Magistrate of Comilla. It is directed against an order of Mr. S. H. Chowdhury, a Magistrate of the 2nd Class at Brahmanbaria, acquitting under section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, three persons who were charged with an offence under section 379 of the P. P. C.
Once more we must remind Subordinate Courts that this Court will not, in the exercise of Revisional jurisdic tion, lightly interfere with the orders of acquittal passed by Magistrates.
We have already drawn attention to the observations made elsewhere with regard to the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court:
"The Revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Court is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal against which the 'Government has a right of appeal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or for the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower Court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record."
In the present case, the learned Additional District Magistrate being moved by a private complainant; has asked us to‑ interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that the learned Magistrate has mis-appreciated the evidence on record. We see no reason to do so.
The reference is accordingly rejected.
K. B. A. M. S. Reference rejected.