3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Dec 20, 2025 11:41 AM IST
Madhya Pradesh High Court News: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside an order acquitting the accused and termed it as “short, cryptic and non-speaking” while directing the sessions court to decide the appeal afresh.
Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani, who was hearing the state’s appeal against the acquittal of a man convicted under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC, described the session court’s order as “one line order” and pointed out that it was “not proper on the part of the appellate court” to set aside the findings of the trial court without assigning “any reason.”
“Merely passing one line order that the appeal is accepted and to set aside the findings of the trial court without assigning any reason is not proper on the part of the appellate court, ” the court said.
The court, finding the approach adopted by the appellate court “condemnable”, highlighted that it was not expected from a judicial officer of the appellate court to pass such a “short, cryptic and non-speaking” order without going into the merits of the case and discussing the evidence so also testing the reasonings given by the trial court.
The court noted that the appellate court’s order could not be said to be “lawful” as no reasoning was given for setting aside the trial court’s order, which entailed the appreciation and marshalling of the evidence on record.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in its December 11 order, directed to set aside the session court’s May 2011 order and underlined that the “matter needs to be remitted back” to the appellate court for deciding it afresh as per law.
Case background
The case stemmed from the trial court’s order, in which the court held the accused, Babulal Malviya, guilty and sentenced him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1,000.
Story continues below this ad
Aggrieved by the decision, the Malviya approached the session court, which directed his acquittal in 2011 without mentioning any reason for the order.
Arguments
Public prosecutor D R Vishwakarma, representing the state, argued that the appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court without assigning “reason” and prayed to remand it back to the appellate court to decide it as per law.
He further highlighted that the judicial officer’s order suffered from “perversity and illegality” and cannot be allowed to be maintained.
On the contrary, the court noted that Malviya’s advocate, Mahesh Prasad Rajak, admitted that the appellate court had set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court “without giving any reasoning.”
