9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against judgment and order of acquittal, Compliance with appeal requirements under Sections 418 and 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Legality of trial in the Sessions Court, Competency of the jury, Mis-trial due to jury incompetence. Analysis: The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant under Sections 408 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was charged with criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts while employed as a clerk at the Imperial Bank in Allahabad. The High Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and a fine, with a portion of the fine directed to be paid to the bank as compensation. The appellant obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (Para. 1). One of the contentions raised was regarding the appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh, questioning the compliance with appeal requirements under Sections 418 and 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court entertained the appeal despite deficiencies in the memorandum of appeal, leading to a debate on the adequacy of grounds in the appeal petition. The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the practice of submitting inadequate grounds for appeal, emphasizing the importance of specific and concise grounds for a meaningful appeal process (Para. 3-4). The second critical issue revolved around the competency of the jury in the trial. The High Court observed that the case involved complex documentary evidence in English, requiring a good understanding of the language for a proper determination. The High Court found that some jurors lacked sufficient knowledge of English to decide the case satisfactorily, leading to a mis-trial due to the incompetence of the jury. Citing precedent, the Supreme Court agreed that the trial was not legally conducted, emphasizing the denial of essential protection to the accused, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Despite the unanimous verdict of not guilty by the jury, the mis-trial rendered the entire proceedings invalid, warranting the setting aside of convictions and sentences (Para. 5-8). Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences. The Court did not opine on the need for a retrial but left it to the State Government to decide on further steps, including the possibility of a re-trial if deemed necessary. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for appropriate directions, if requested by the Government (Para. 9-10).
|
