07/12/2025
2022 SCMR 1861
Under section 249-A, the Magistrate is empowered to acquit any accused on two grounds i.e. charge is groundless and there is no probability of conviction, whereas under section 265-K Cr.P.C., the court during the trial is empowered to acquit an accused, when there is no probability of conviction indicating that when there is no evidence on the record and even there is no remote probability of conviction and if thcre is remote probability of conviction then the court is required to record the evidence and then decide the case on evidence bought on record during the trial. From the above sections, it is also clear that application under sections 249-A and 265-K Cr.P.C. can be filed or taken up for adjudication at any stage of proceeding of trial i.e. cvcrI before recording of prosecution evidence or during recording of evidence or when recording of evidence is over. Although there is no bar for an accused to file application under the said sections at any stage of proceeding of the trial, yet the fact and circumstance, the prosecution case will have to be kept in mind and if there is slight probability of conviction then off course, instead of deciding the said application should record the evidence and allowed the case to decide on its merit after appraising the evidence available on recorded.
There is no cavil to the proposition that by enacting sections 249-A and 265-K, CrI'C., the Legislature provided power to acquit an accused at any stage of the case if, after hearing the prosecutor and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, it considers that the charge is groundless or that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence. But acquittal, under the said sections, could be made only if there was no probability of conviction of the accused. However, each case must be judged on its own special facts and circumstances and the reasons are to be recorded in support of conclusion that charge is groundless or that there is no probability of accused being convicted. If there is remote probability of conviction then of course courts are not empowered to invoke the said provisions i.e. 249-A and 265-K Cr.P.C..
Further, in appellate or revisional proceedings, the same sanctity cannot be accorded to acquittals at intermediary stages such as under, sections 249-A or 265-K Cr.P.C., as available for those recorded and based on full-fledged trial after recording of evidence. In appeal or revision proceedings, the order of acquittal of the accused under section 249-A or section 265-K of the Ct-P.C. would not have the same sanctity as orders of acquittal on merits. Consequently, the principles which are to he observed and applied in setting aside concurrent findings of acquittal or the principle relating to the presumption of double innocence when an accused is acquitted after a full-fledged inquiry and trial, would not he applicable to the acquittals under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. or section 265-K, Cr.P.C.@
