Dismissed

Niranjan v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2018CRLR/1330/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging a conviction and modified sentence. Relying on precedent, the Court held that revisional courts under CrPC cannot act as appellate courts to re-appraise evidence or set aside factual findings. Finding no illegality or impropriety, the Court rejected appeals against conviction and sentence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed as it lacked merit; revisionist Nandu's plea was dismissed due to death by abatement.

Niranjan Vs State of U.P. and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1330 of 1988

¶3

Revisionist :- Niranjan & others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- D.N.Yadav,A.P. Mishra,P.K.Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,Rajni Kant Malviya

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

None is present on behalf of revisionists. Heard learned AGA and perused the record. The revision is being decided on merit.

¶6

Revisionist No.4 Nandu has died according to report of CJM, Gyanpur dated 26.4.2014. All necessary papers have been annexed with the report. Hence the revision in respect of revisionist No.4 Nandu has been dismissed as abated on 26.8.2014.

¶7

This criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 17.9.1988 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1985 whereby the appeal was dismissed and sentence was modified and appellants Niranjan, Sahati, Mithai and Nandu were sentenced to fine of Rs.100/- each(Niranjan under section 323 IPC and other three under section 323/34 IPC) and Rs.50/- each under section 427 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

¶8

From perusal of record, it transpires that vide judgment and order dated 2.5.1985 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur, Varanasi in Case No. 779/83, Police Station Bhadohi, Varanasi, revisionist Niranjan was convicted under section 323, 427 IPC and sentenced to three months'R.I. and Rs.100/- under section 427 IPC and in default to deposit fine, to undergo R.I. for one month and other accused persons namely Sahati, Mithai and Nandu were convicted and sentenced to fine of Rs.400/- each under section 323/34 IPC and Rs.100/- each under section 427 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and one month under section 323/34 and 427 IPC respectively.

¶9

Learned AGA submitted that lower Court has already taken lenient view.

¶10

On the point of conviction, both Trial and Appellate Courts have given concurrent finding and view taken by both the Courts is plausible view. Hence no interference is called for on the point of conviction.

¶11

On the point of sentence, already lenient view has been taken by the Court concerned. Hence no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order.

¶12

The Apex Court in the case of State Farm Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Nijjer Agro Foods Ltd., (2005) 12 SCC 502, State of Maharashtra Vs. Jag Mohan Singh Kuldip Singh, 2004 (50) ACC 889 (SC) and Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 107, has held that while the appellate jurisdiction is co-extensive with the original court's jurisdiction as a appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence is concerned, the revisional court has simply to confine to the legality and propriety of the findings and as to whether the subordinate court acted within it's jurisdiction. A revisional court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate and impose and substitute it's own findings. Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. confer only limited power on revisional court to the extent of satisfying the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like appellate court for other purposes including the recording of new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence.

¶13

This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment & order. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

The revision is dismissed.

¶15

Copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately. Compliance report be submitted to this Court and on receipt of same, office shall keep the same on record.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.9.2018 P.P.

Niranjan v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Intezar Vs State of U.P.

Majid Vs State of U.P.

Ayyub Vs State of U.P.

Chunni Lal and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Hari Bheji Vs Khatun Begam and Others

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another