Rikhabdas Vs. State

Rikhabdas vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jun 01, 1951

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/752630

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/752630
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Atma Charan, J.C.
Decided On: Jun 01, 1951
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rikhabdas

Respondent

State

Legal References

Reported In: 1952CriLJ1381

Excerpt

- orderatma charan, j.c.1. the accused-applicant stood acquitted' by order of the court, dated 9.9.1949, in criminal revision no. 113 of 1948. the court below has laboured hard to come to the conclusion that the order of acquittal was no 'acquittal' at all. if the intention of the court had been that the accused-applicant was to be tried again, then it would have said so. the court 'acquitted' the accused-applicant holding that the sanction on the record of the trial court was an interpolated one. this does not necessarily mean that there was no sanction at all. in the circumstances, it is not open to the court below to retry the accused-applicant afresh on the same facts.2. the application in revision accordingly is allowed, the order of the court below retrying the accused-applicant on the same facts after his 'acquittal' is quashed in entirety and he is discharged.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Atma Charan, J.C.

1. The accused-applicant stood acquitted' by order of the Court, dated 9.9.1949, in Criminal Revision No. 113 of 1948. The court below has laboured hard to come to the conclusion that the order of acquittal was no 'acquittal' at all. If the intention of the Court had been that the accused-applicant was to be tried again, then it would have said so. The Court 'acquitted' the accused-applicant holding that the sanction on the record of the trial court was an interpolated one. This does not necessarily mean that there was no sanction at all. In the circumstances, it is not open to the court below to retry the accused-applicant afresh on the same facts.

2. The application in revision accordingly is allowed, the order of the court below retrying the accused-applicant on the same facts after his 'acquittal' is quashed in entirety and he is discharged.

Same Parties Rikhabdas vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Atma Charan, J.C.

Criminal trial court in re