"........as per Ballistic expert's opinion, cartridge E. C. 1 was not fired from the single barrel 12 bore No. 1319 said to have been used by the accused. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. "
when the incident took place, appellants 3 and 4 were less than 21 years of age and, therefore, they ought to have been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. This contention was neither taken in the sessions court nor in the
The scheme of the Code is clear that as a general rule, as soon as the judgment is pronounced or order is made by a Court, it becomes functus officio (ceases to have control over the case) and has no power to review, override, alter or interfere with
It is now a well-settled principle of law that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India would ordinarily not interfere with the judgment of acquittal, if two views are possible.
Where borrower alleging defamation on ground action pending in civil court and not Tribunal, mistake genuine and not defamatory