Against his companyviction, appellant No.
It is companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant that the order passed by the High Court is illegal inasmuch as retrial companyld number have been ordered without setting aside the judgment passed by the trial companyrt.
1 only and acquitted the other accused including appellant Nos.
Singh, U.N. Singh, P.N. Gupta, H.S. Paul, J. Buttar, Alok Mahajan, Advs.
Thereafter, the High Court thought it fit to dispose of the Revision petition filed by Bhajan Singh and Pritam Singh but kept the appeal filed by After singh Pending till the retrial ordered by the High Court is over.
Against the acquittal of appellant No.
with him for the appearing parties.
As the appeal filed by the appellant No.
THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997.
1 has filed an appeal in the High Court and it is still pending.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
738/91 Nanavati.
2 and 3.
J, The three appellants were tried alongwith 13 other accused for various offences alleged t o have been companymitted by them one of them being the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 and against the acquittal of rest of the accused, Bhajan Singh and Pritam Singh, who are original informant and his brother respectively, filed a Revision petition before the High Court.
It appears that the appeal and the Revision petition were heard together and the judgment in both the cases was reserved.
Therefore, the three accused against whom an order of retrial is passed have approached this companyrt.
The trial companyrt companyvicted appellant No.
