Claim Maintenance-Wife, Minor Child, Major Child who due to phycal or mental abnormality is

unable to maintain itself, and Mother and father can claim maintenance The provisions regarding
maintenance are contained U/Ss. 125 to 128. Order for Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents
According to S. 125 (1), if any person having sufficient, means neglects or refuses to maintain- (a) His
wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) His legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or
not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) His legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter)
who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or
injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) His father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself;
Parliament passed a Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 providing for
other remedies to Muslim women. This new Act allows a Muslim woman to avail the remedy
available U/S. 125 Cr.P.C. only if the husband consents to it. Procedure for Receiving Maintenance
Allowance Acc S. 126 (1), proceedings U/S. 125 may be taken against any person in any district- (a)
Where he is, or (b) Where he or his wife resides, or (c) Where he last resided with his wife, or as the
case may be with the mother of the illegitimate child. (2) All evidence in such proceedings shall be
taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment op maintenance is proposed
to be made(3) The Court in dealing with applications U/S. 125 shall have power to make such order as
to costs as may be just. Alteration in Allowance According to S. 127 (1), on proof of a change in the
circumstances of any person, receiving U/S. 125 a monthly allowance. (2)Where it appears to the
Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent civil Court, any order made U/S. 125
should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same
accordingly. (3) Where any order has been made U/S. 125 in favour of a woman who has been
divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband, the Magistrate shall, if he is satisfied, that-
(a) The woman has,'after the date of such divorce, remarried, cancel such order as from the date of
her re-marriage; (b) The woman has been divorced by her husband and that she has received,
whether before or after the date of the said order, the whole of the sum which, under any customary
or personal law order-
applicable to the parties, was payable on such divorce, cancel such
(i) In the case where such sum was paid before such order, from the dat on which such order was
made,
(it) In any other case, from the date of expiry of the period, if any. for which maintenance has been
actually paid by the husband to
the woman-
(c) The woman has obtained a divorce from her husband and that she had voluntarily surrendered
her rights to maintenance after her divorce, cancel the order from the date thereof.
(4) At the time of making any decree for the recovery of any maintenance or dowry by any person, to
whom a monthly allowance has been ordered to be paid U/S. 125, the Civil Court shall take into
account the sum which has been paid to, or recovered by, such person as monthly allowance in
pursuance of the said order.
Enforcement of Order of Maintenance According to S.
128, a copy of the order of maintenance shall be given without payment to the person in whose
favour it is made, or to his guardian, if any, or to the person to whom the allowance is to be paid; and
such order may be enforced by any Magistrate in any place where the person against whom it is
made may be, on such Magistrate being satisfied as to the identity of the parties and the non-
payment of the allowance due.
When is a Wife not Entitled to Receive an Allowance from her Husband?According to S. 125 (4), no
wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section in the following
cases- 1. When she is living in adultery, 2. When without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with
her husband. 3. If they are living separately by mutual consent.

--------
A person once convicted or acquitted shall not be ried again for the same offence", Comment. Are
there any exceptions to this rule? If so, what?
Ans. Person Once Convicted or Acquitted not to be Tried for Same Offence According to S. 300 (1), a
person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or
acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be
tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different
charge from the one made against him might have been made U/Sub-Sec. (1) of S. 221, or for which
he might have been convicted U/Sub-Sec. (2) thereof.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the
State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made
against him at the former trial U/Sub-Sec. (1) of S. 220.
(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act
.
causing consequences which together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of
which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-mentioned offence, if the
consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time
when he was convicted.
(4). A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such
acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by
the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not
competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
(5) A person discharged U/S. 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the
consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned
Court is subordinate.
(6) Nothing in this Section shall affect the provisions of S. 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 or of S.
188 of this Code.
Explanation--The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the
purposes of this Section.
For Examples;
(a) A is tried upon a charge of theft as a servant and acquitted.
He cannot afterwards, while the acquittal remains in force, be Charged with theft as a servant, or,
upon the same facts, with theft simply, or with criminal breach of trust.
(b) A is tried for causing grievous hurt and convicted. The person injured afterwards dies. A may be
tried again for culpable homicide.
(c) A is charged before the Court of Session and convicted of the culpable homicide of B. A may not
afterwards be tried on the same facts for the murder of B.
(d) A is charged by a Magistrate of the first class with, and convicted by him of, voluntarily causing
hurt to B. A may not afterwards be tried for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to B on the same facts,
unless this case comes within Sub-Sec (3) of this section.
(e) A is charged by a Magistrate of the second class with, and convicted by him of, theft of property
from the person of B. A may subsequently be charged with, and tried for, robbery on the same facts.
(1) A, B and, C are charged by a Magistrate of the first class
with, and convicted by him of, robbing D. A, B and C may afterwards be charged with and tried for,
dacoity on the same facts.
It is to be noted that Sub-S. (1) of S. 300 is in conformity with the provision of Art. 20 (2) of the
Constitution which provides that
"no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once."
Object of S. 300-The object of S. 300 was explained by the Supreme Court in State of A.P. Vs. K.
Meeraiali, A.I.R. 1970 SC
771. According to the Supreme Court main object of the rule of issue estoppel is to prevent re-
litigation of the issue which has been determined in a Criminal trial between the State and the
accused.
The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent Court on a lawful charge after a lawful
trial will be that this verdict will be binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the
same parties to the adjudictation on the same issue. The principle was essentially used in civil
proceedings and has been extended to criminal proceedings as well.
Other sub-sections of S. 300 of the Code are exceptions to the general rule contained in Sub-S. (1).
In order to get the benefit of this Section or Article 20(2); it is necessary for the accused person to
establish that he had been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and he is
convicted or acquitted of that offence and the said conviction or acquittal is in force. Adjudication
before a Collector of Customs is not a prosecution and Collector of Customs is not a court. Therefore,
neither the rule of autre fois acquit nor the issue estoppel rule applies in such proceedings. This
section does not apply in departmental inquiries. The rule of issue estoppel does not apply in
proceedings W/S. 107 of this Code because there is no trial and no order or conviction or acquittal in
such proceedings.
It was held in Baij Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bhopal, A.I.R.
1957 SC 494 that the whole basis of this section is that the first trial should have been before a court
of competent jurisdiction, if the court is not so competent, because previous sanction for prosecution
was not obtained, the whole trial is null and void and it cannot be said that there was any conviction
or acquittal in force within the meaning of this section. Therefore, such trial does not bar a
subsequent trial of the accused.
Rule of Issue-Estoppel- In Manipur Administration Vs.
Bira Singh, A. I.R. 1965 S.C. 87, it was held that the rule of issue-estoppel in a criminal trial is that
where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court on a former occasion and a finding has
been reached in favour of an accused, such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res judicata
against the prosecution, not as a bar to the trial and conviction of the accused for a different or
distinct offence, but as precluding the reception of evidence to disturb that finding of fact when the
accused is tried subsequently even for a different offence which might be permitted by the terms of
Sub-S. (2) of this section. The rule is not the same as the plea of double jeopardy or autrefois acquit.
The rule of issue-estoppel relates only to the admissibility of evidence which is designed to upset a
finding of fact recorded by a competent court at a previous trial.

/-------------

When may a bail be taken? When a bail may be taken even in case of non-bailable offence? Has the
court of Sessions or High Court special powers regarding bail?
Ans. Provisions as to Bail and Bonds--The provisions relating to bail and bonds are contained under
Chapter XXXIII of Cr.P.C. which are as under-
When may a Bail be Taken in Bailable Offence ?-
-S. 436
makes provision for bail of a person who is accused of any offence other than non-bailable offence. A
person shall be released on bail if-
1. He has been arrested or detained without warrant by an officer-in-charge of a police station, or
2. He appears or is brought before a court, and
3. He must be prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the
proceeding before court to give bail.
First proviso to Sub-S. (1) of S. 436 gives discretionary power to the officer in whose custody a person
is or the court to discharge the accused on bond without sureties for his appearance.
In the matter of admission to bail, the Code of Criminal Procedure makes a distinction between
bailable and non-bailable offences. In non-bailable offences, bail may be granted in the discretign of
the Magistrate U/S. 437. Any person charged of a non-bailable offence may be released on bail by the
trial court, the Court of Session or the High Court and can be re-arrested and committed to custody
by cancelling the bail. The position in case of bailable offences is different. A person accused of a
bailable offence has on arrest a right U/S. 436 to be released on bail. The power of Magistrate to
grant bail does not depend upon his competence to try the case but on the punishment prescribed
for the offence.
When Bail may be Taken in case of Non-bailable Offence-According to S. 437 (1), when any person
accused of or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained
without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court
other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but-
(i Such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he has
been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life;
(ii) Such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been
previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for
seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a non-bailable
and cognizable offence
Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in Clause (i) or (fi) be released on bail if
such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm-
Provided further that the Court may also direct that a person referred to in Clause (ii) be released on
bail if it is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special reason-
Provided also that the mere fact that an accused person may be required for being identified by
witnesses during investigation shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is
otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that he shall comply with such
directions as may be given by the Court.
(2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case
may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a  
non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the
accused shall, subject to the provisions of
S. 446-(A) and pending such inquiry, be released on bail or, at the discretion of such officer or Court,
on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.
(3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence U/Ch. VI, Ch. XVI or Ch.
XVII of I.P.C. or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail
U/Sub-S. (1), the Court may impose any condition which the Court considers necessary-
(a) In order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed under this
Chapter, or
(b) In order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he
is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, or,
(c) Otherwise in the interests of justice.
(4) An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail U/Sub-S.
(1) or Sub-S. (2), shall record in writing his or its reasons or special reasons for so doing.
(5) Any Court which has released a person on bail U/Sub-S.
(1) or (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit
him to custody.
(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is
not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case,
such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the
satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise
directs.
(7) If, at any time after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence and
before judgment is delivered, the Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in
custody, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment
delivered.
Special Powers of High Court or Court of Session
Regarding Bail_-According to S. 439 (1), a High Court or Court of Session may direct-
(a) That any person accused of an effence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of
the nature specified in Sub-S s. (3) of S. 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary
for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section-
(b) That any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or
modified
Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is
accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so
triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the. application for bail to the Public
Prosecutor unless it is for reasons to be recorded in writing, of the opinion that it is not practicable to
give such notice.
(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under
this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.
It may be noted that Sub-S. (1) deals with the power of the High Court or Court of Session regarding
bail. It can issue a direction that any person accused of an offence and in custody should be released
on bail. If the offence is of the nature specified in Sub-S. (3) of S. 437, the Court may impose any
condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section.
It can direct that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set
aside or modified.

-----

What is an Appeal? The word appeal is no where defined under Cr. P.C. It may, however, be said that,
an appeal is the removal of a cause from an inferior court to the superior Court for the purpose of
testing the soundness of the decision of the Court.
The legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and second appeal are steps in a series of proceedings all
connected by an intrinsic unity and are to be regarded one legal proceeding. The right of appeal is not
a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right. It is vested right and this right to enter the
superior court accrues to the litigant and exists as on and from the date the lis commences and
although it may be actually exercised when the adverse judgment is pronounced, such right is to be
governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit or proceeding and not by the
law that prevails at the date of its decisions or at the date of the filing of the appeal.
Cases in which no Appeal Lie According to S. 372, no appeal shall lie from any judgement or order of a
criminal court except as provided for by this code or by any other law for the time being in force.
Thus, according to the provisions of Cr.P.C. no appeal can lie in the following cases-
1. Where Accused Pleads Guilty Notwithstanding anything contained in S. 374, where an accused
person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal-
(a) If the conviction is by a High Court; or
(b) If the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan magistrate or Magistrate of the first or
second class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.
2. No Appeal in Petty Cases- According to S. 376, notwithstanding anything contained in S. 374, there
shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any of the following cases, namely-
(a) Where a High Court passes only a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months
or of fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, or of both such imprisonment and
fine_
(b) Where a Court of Session or a Metropolitan Magistrate passes only a sentence of imprisonment
for a term not exceeding three months or of fine exceeding two hundred rupees, or of both such
imprisonment and fine;
(c) Where a Court of Session or a Metropolitan Magistrate passes only a sentence of imprisonment
for a term not exceeding three months or of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, or of both such
imprisonment and fine;
(d) Where, in a case tried summarily, a Magistrate empowered to act U/S. 260 passes only a sentence
of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees.
Provided that an appeal may be brought against any such sentence if any other punishment is
combined with it, but such sentence shall not be appealable merely on the ground-
(i That the person convicted is ordered to furnish secutiry to keep the peace; or
(ii) That a direction for imprisonment in default of payment of fine is included in the sentence; or
(ili That more than one sentence of fine is passed in the case, if the total amount of fine imposed
does not exceed the amount herein before specified in respect of the case.
Can a Revision be Filed where no Right of Appeal is
Exercised? According to S. 401 (1), where under this code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no
proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who coup. have
appealed.
Q. 24. (a) Write a note on the appellate and revisional powers of the High Court in a Criminal case.
*hs. Appellate Powers of High Court According to S. 386, after perusing such record and hearing the
appeallant or his pleader. if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor, if he appears, and in case or an
appeal US. 377 or 378, the accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may. if it considers that there
is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal, or may-
(a) In an appeal from an order of acquittal
Reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that he accused be re-tried or
committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law;
(b) In an appeal from a conviction-
( Reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by
a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or (ii)
Alter the finding maintaining the sentence, or
.
(ini) With or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of
the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same.
(c) In an appeal for enhancement of sentence-
(i) Reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be re-tried
•by a Court competent to try the offence, or
(il) Alter the finding maintaining the sentence, or (li) With or without altering the finding, alter the
nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same;
(d) In an appeal from any other order-Alter or reverse such order.
(e) Make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper:
Provided that the sentence shall not be enhanced unless the accused has had an opportunity of
showing cause against such enhancement:
•
Provided. further that the Appellate Court shall not inflict greater punishmeht for the Offence which
in its opinion the accused has committed, than might have been inflicted for that offence by the Court
passing the order or sentence under appeal.
It is to be noted that while hearing an appeal US. 378, if it appears by the evidence that a separate
offence has been committed, the High Court can direct the Magistrate to frame a charge for such
offence which was prima facie established and can also order that the accused be committed. Charge
can be altered at the appellate stage provided that the accused has not to face a charge for a new
offence or is not prejudiced either by keeping him in dark about that charge or in not giving a full
opportunity or meeting it and putting forward any defence open to him, on the charge finally
preferred against him:
In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Narayana, A..R. 1967, S.C. 248, the accused was tried jointly for
more offences than one.
He was convicted for some and acquitted on other charges. He appealed against his conviction. No
appeal was made against order of acquittal for other offences. It was held that the powers conferred
by S. 386 cannot be exercised for the purpose of reversing an order of acquittal in dealing with an
appeal preferred by him against the order of conviction in respect of another offence.
It was held in Rajayyan Vs. State of Kerala, 1998 Cr. LJ 1633 (SC) that in an appeal against an order of
acquittal it is a well settled principle of law that an order of acquittal ought not to be set aside unless
it is found to be patently wrong and wholly unsustainable.
High Court's"
Powers of Revision- According to S. 401 (1),
in the case df any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise
comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred
on a Court of Appeal by Ss. 386, 389, 390, and 391 or on a Court of Session by S. 307 and, when the
Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in
the manner provided by S. 392.
(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless
he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High
Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision
shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.
(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High
Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the
erroneous bs lor justice so to do, the Hligh Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of
appeal and deal with the same accordingly.
It may be noted that the fligh Court as an appellate court can set aside an order of acquittal. In doing
so the High Court has To review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
Where the Sessions ludge acquitted the accused by ignoring the probative valuc of F. 1.R. and reliable
testimony of eye-witnesses and without considering material evidence on record and his judgment
was full of inconsistencies and consisted of faulty reasoning the order of the High Court in revision
directing retrial by setting aside acquittal would be justified. An appellate court should not interfere
to the detriment of an accused person except for very strong reasons which must be disclosed on the
face of the judgment. Interference by the High Court will be justified when the sentence is manifestly
inadequate or unduly lenient in the particular circumstances of the case or where failure to impose a
proper sentence results in miscarriage of justice. The High Court must see whether justice has in fact
been done. In case of injustice interference by the High Court is not only a right but a duty too. Rama
Kishan Vs. Harmit Kaunj,
A. I.R. 1972 SC. 488.
Q. 24. (b)To what court can a person convicted on a trial appeal? Can there be an appeal, if the
aceused pleads guilty?
Where does an appeal lie in case of an acquittal?
Ans. To What Court an Appeal Lies Against Conviction?-According to S. 374 (1), any person convicted
on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the
Supreme Court.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a
trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has
been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial, may appeal to the
High Court.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-S. (2), any person-
(a) Convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or
Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or
(b) Sentenced U/S. 325, or
(c) In respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed U/S., 360 by any
Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session. 

Can there be an Appeal if Accused Pleads Guilty?-According to S. 375, notwithstanding anything

contained in S. 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such
plea, there shall be no appeal-
(a) If the conviction is by a High Court; or
(b) If the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan magistrate or Magistrate of the first or
second class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.
Where does an Appeal Lie in Case of an Acquittal?
According to S. 378 (1), save as otherwise provided in Sub-S. (2) and subject to the provisions of Sub-
S. (3) and (5), the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an
appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other
than a High Court or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.
(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by
the Delhi Special Police
Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 or by any other
agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code,
the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal, subject to the
provisions of Sub-Sec. (3), to the High Court from the order of acquittal.
(3) No appeal U/Sub-S. (1) or Sub-S. (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court.
(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted. upon complaint and the High Court,
on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the
order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to. the High Court.
(5) No application U/Sub-S. (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall
be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public
servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal.
(6) If, in any case, the application U/Sub-S. (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of
acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie U/Sub-S. (1) or (2).
It is to be noted that in an appeal against acquittal under this section the High Court has full power to
review at large the evidence on which the acquittal is based and to reach the conclusion that the
order of acquittal should be reversed. Where a number of persons evidence separately as against
each of the accused. No limitation Should be placed upon that power unless it be found expressly
state in the Code itself. But in exercising this power the High Cour should give proper weight and
consideration to-
( The views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of witnesses;
(2) Presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the
fact that he has been acquitted at his trial;
(3) Right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and
(4) Slowness of the appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the
advantage of seeing the
witnesses.