IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL  NO. 1197   OF 2002

 S.K. MANIRUDDIN   ... APPELLANT(S) :VERSUS:

 STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.  ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R This  appeal,  by  special  leave,  is  directed  

against the judgment and order dated 1.2.2002 passed by  the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.R. No.1945/2000.  

This  is  essentially  a  dispute  between  the  husband and wife who are the appellant and respondent  No.2 herein. The appellant was originally charged under  Sections 498A, 307 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code.  The  Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him  to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one  year and a fine of Rs.1000/- for commission of offence  under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.  

-2-

On  an  appeal  filed  by  the  appellant,  the  Additional  District  Judge,  13th Court,  South  24- Parganas, Alipore, by his order dated 18.12.1999 set  aside the order of conviction and remanded the matter  to the Trial Court for retrial after adducing fresh  evidence as regards the place and date of occurrence  only.

The matter again came up before the Trial Court  and the Trial Court by its order dated 15.7.2000 passed  in S.T. Case No.3(4)/97, acquitted the appellant for  want of evidence.

Against  the  said  order  of  acquittal  dated  15.7.2000 passed by the Trial Court, the complainant –  respondent No.2 herein filed a criminal revision before  the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High  Court vide its order  dated 1.2.2002 passed in C.R.R.  No. 1945/2000, has set aside the order of acquittal  passed by the Trial Court and remanded the matter to  the Trial Court for decision afresh on a very limited  aspect. The order passed by the learned Single Judge of

the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.    

-3- The High Court has observed as under:

“In view of the order of learned Appellate  Court, the learned Trial Court should have  elicited  further  inclination  of  the  prosecution  to  adduce  any  evidence  and  by  simply in a mechanical fashion dubbing 'the  prosecution  does  not  intend  to  adduce  any  other evidence' shutting the door on the face  of the prosecution, was not at all very happy  scene.  The  learned  Trial  Court,  with  due  respect, I venture to say took a very passive  approach and did not involve itself actively  in the remand process to elicit the actual  crux of the matter. Accordingly, I am of the  view,  that  the  matter  should  be  sent  on  remand for fresh decision as it is at the  stage  of  fresh  remand  as  passed  by  the  learned Trial Court.”  

The High Court has noted down the statement of  the learned counsel appearing for the prosecution that  the prosecution does not intend to adduce any other  evidence. Perhaps because the basic dispute is between  the husband and the wife. We find no infirmity in the  stand taken by the prosecution.

In  this  view  of  the  matter,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  no  useful  purpose  would  be  served  in  remitting the matter for reconsideration, particularly  when  the  prosecution  is  not  prepared  to  adduce  any  other evidence in this matter. In this view of the  matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot  be sustained.  

-4-

On consideration of the totality of the facts  and circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate  to  set  aside  the  impugned  judgment  and  allow  this  appeal.  The appeal is accordingly disposed of.     

....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

....................J   (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)    NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 9, 2009.