JUDGEMENT
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY,J. -
(1.)Sri Arvind Srivastava III, learned counsel for petitioner has not disputed that petitioner was an accused in three criminal cases. In two criminal cases after trial petitioner was acquitted, however, in one case trial is pending. Details of criminal cases with their present status alongwith nature of acquittal are mentioned hereinafter:
JUDGEMENT_52_LAWS(ALL)7_2022_1.html
(2.)Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since petitioner was acquitted in two criminal cases, as the prosecution was failed to proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and also that the charges in third case are not of serious in nature, therefore, respondents-authorities ought to have considered the case of petitioner in the light of principles enumerated in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2016(8) SCC 471, but they have not considered the case of petitioner in the light of aforesaid judgment, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and matter should be remanded back for consideration of case of petitioner in the light of Avtar Singh (supra).
(3.)Learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, while opposing the above submissions submits that nature of acquittal of petitioner in two criminal cases does not fall under category of honourable/ clean acquittal, rather the order of acquittal was passed granting benefit of doubt as the prosecution was failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which has been considered in impugned order. Petitioner was involved in the offences which were serious in nature, i.e., robbery, and it cannot be considered to be a case of trivial nature as well as presently petitioner is facing trial for the offence being part of an unlawful assembly and causing hurt.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.