Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1981 DIGILAW 19 (RAJ)

Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

1981-01-20

N.M.KASLIWAL

body1981
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Bhagwan Singh had filed criminal revision No. 41/1977 against his conviction under section 409 IPC. The case was heard at length in the presence of Mr. S.N. Bhargava and Mr. Heman Das Public Prosecutor and this court by judgment dated August 5, 1981, allowed the revision, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquitted him of all the charges. 2. Mr. Soral, has filed this application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. on the ground that the revision arose out of a case submitted by CBI after investigation done by it. It is submitted that in all CBI cases pending in the High Court, Shri D.K. Soral alone was a retainer counsel for CBI and he alone was authorised to represent CBI and argue on its behalf. It is submitted that the counsel for the accused did not inform him and Shri Heman Das Public Prosecutor represented the State without being authorised to do so. In these circumstances, it is submitted that there was no proper representation on behalf of the State and in the interest of justice the order of acquittal should be recalled and revision application should be reheard. 3. From a perusal of the order-sheets it appears that Mr. Heman Das Public Prosecutor was all along appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. It was the duty of the CBI to keep track of the case and now when the case has been finally decided on merits, it cannot be said that Shri D.K. Soral appearing on behalf of CBI has made out any legal right for being heard. Mr. Heman Das was Deputy Government Advocate at the relevant time and he had appeared as Public Prosecutor in the case and had argued at length on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. Inspite of these facts I gave an opportunity to Mr. Soral to point out any error in the judgment given by me on 5th August, 1981. Mr. Soral appearing on behalf of CBI was unable to point out any error in the judgment and in these circumstances of the case I don't see any reason to review my decision. 4. The application is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******