ISSUE:
Whether the High Court, in exercising its revisional jurisdiction, was justified in setting aside the acquittal and directing a de novo trial?
Whether the High Court’s directions to invoke Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon additional witnesses and fill gaps left by the prosecution were legally sustainable?
Whether the High Court’s observations could improperly influence the trial court’s decision on retrial?
Whether a retrial could be ordered in the absence of a fundamental defect in the trial process?
RULE:
Revisional jurisdiction must be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a manifest miscarriage of justice. Mere possibility of a different view on evidence does not justify interference.
An order of retrial cannot be used to indirectly overturn an acquittal. Section 401(3) Cr.P.C. prohibits converting an acquittal into a conviction in revision.
A trial court has discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon witnesses, but this power cannot be used to cure defects in the prosecution’s case. The prosecution’s failure to present evidence does not automatically justify judicial intervention.
Observations made by a revisional court should not create an impression of a predetermined outcome. If a retrial is ordered, the trial court must evaluate the case independently without being influenced by any implied directions.
A retrial does not erase evidence already recorded. If remanded, the trial court must consider both existing and additional evidence.