Acquittal
Acquittal-interference with, by the Supreme Court. (Per C. J)- Reversal of the acquittal by the High Court and its replacement by a conviction is possible only if the Supreme Court be satisfied independently that the evidence in the case was in quality and quantity adequate to support a conviction of the offence charged.
Supreme
Court, before interfering with the order of acquittal, willfully examined the
evidence on record.
Unless
it is possible to demonstrate with certainty that none of the grounds upon
which the learned Judges have purported to acquit are at all supportable the
Supreme Court will be reluctant to interfere with the order of acquittal. Siraj
Din Vs. Kala (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 94.
It
must not be understood that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to interfere
with an order of acquittal by a High Court or any other Court otherwise than
upon appeal by the State. There are circumstances in which such an appeal may
be clearly competent, e.g. where the prosecution was commenced and continued
upon a private complaint. The Supreme Court will not, in a proper case,
hesitate to interfere where the circumstances indicate that there have been a
grave miscarriage of justice, by some disregard of the form of legal legal
process, or by some violation of the principles of natural justice. Md. Ashiq
vs. Allah Bakhsh (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 55.
It
is quite conceivable that these conditions might be satisfied in a case in
which the state might not choose to move the Supreme Court against an order of
acquittal, and it is, therefore, of great importance that the Court should not
be understood to place an absolute bar against motions of this kind. Md. Ashiq
Vs. Allah Bakhsh (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 55.
It
may be that the Government being embarrassed by the order of acquittal, might
have applied to the High Court to quash them. But the omission of the
Government to take such step which was not incumbent, would not convert an
order made without jurisdiction into an order passed
Acquittal--Appellate
or revisional Court can pass sentence of punishment which are in excess of the
power of the Magistrate acquitting the accused. This power should be sparingly
used. Munir Vs State (1957) 9 DLR (SC) 125.
Acquittal-
An acquittal would mean acquittal on facts which creates a bar for further
trial u/s. 403 of Cr.P.C. The refusal to take cognizance is no bar for further
trial and does not operate as an acquittal of a charge. Rana Muhammad Fazal
Khan Vs. State 14 DLR (SC) 235.
State filed a leave
petition against the order of acquittal by the High Court Division which was
dismissed after hearing. Subsequently the informant filed another leave
petition. There is no scope for hearing the second petition at the instance of
the informant. Mostoshir Ali vs Arman Ali 42 DLR (AD) 12.
Acquittal:–– Discharge cannot be taken as acquittal–– The misappropriation is only Tk. 1,60,200/- committed about 34 years ago it will be difficult on the part of prosecution to prove the charge after splitting into ten cases. Therefore, we have taken a lenient view on the question of retrial of the petitioner on consideration of the fact that the petitioner has suffered in jail custody for sometime and he is not in service. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction of the petitioner and instead of remanding the matter, we discharge him of the case. This order of discharge cannot be taken as acquittal and the petitioner cannot claim reinstatement in his service on consideration of his conduct. .....Bashir Ahmed =VS= DC, Magura, [3 LM (AD) 541]
