Dismissed

Lal Chandra Jain v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2018CRLR/1667/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 1667 of 1992, the High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging the release of a tanker in favour of its registered owner. The Court held that the lower court's finding was plausible and no manifest illegality existed, thus no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; no interference with the order releasing the tanker to the registered owner.

Lal Chandra Jain Vs State of U.P. and Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1667 of 1992

¶3

Revisionist :- Lal Chandra Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Revisionist :- V.M. Zaidi Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

None is present on behalf of the revisionist even in the revised list.

¶6

Learned A.G.A is present.

¶7

The revisionist Lal Chandra Jain has preferred this revision under section 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. against Smt. Sumitra Devi, opposite party no.4, Sudhir Kumar, Alok Kumar, respondent nos.2 and 3 and State of U.P. respondent no.1 challenging the judgment and order dated 26.08.1992 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Case No.106/12/1992, whereby application for release of Tanker No.URJ2835 of Lal Chandra Jain- revisionist was rejected and vehicle was released in favour of Sumitra Devi, who was the registered owner.

¶8

The grounds of revision narrated in the memo of revision are that the said Tanker was released vide order dated 19.04.1989 in favour of Lal Chandra Jain and Ashok Kumar Sharma with some condition and revision against that order was dismissed. After several applications moved before this Court it was decided vide Hon'ble Court's order dated 27.01.1992 to the Special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar to give custody of the said tanker to the police. In compliance of order of Hon'ble Court on 11.02.1992 that tanker was taken into custody by the police and till disposal of the application pending on this issue, tanker was in the custody of police. During that time an application was moved on 18.2.1992 by Smt.Sumitra Devi for release of tanker in her favour because she is the registered owner of the tanker. Compliance of order passed in Writ Petition No.2642 of 1992, the said tanker was released in favour of Sumitra Devi. After several litigation final impugned order dated 26.08.1992 was passed on the basis of registered ownership, the said vehicle was released in favour of Smt.Sumitra Devi. Hence, this revision.

¶9

From perusal of record and impugned order, it transpires that Smt.Sumitra Devi was the registered owner of the vehicle in question and Form 29 and 30 was summoned and that was found correct. The registration order in favour of Sumitra Devi was final and on that basis vehicle was released in favour of Sumitra Devi.

¶10

In Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, 1975(4) SCC 649 the Court reminded that jurisdiction of High Court in criminal revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction in revision the Court would be justified in refusing to re-appreciate evidence for determining whether the concurrent findings of fact reached by learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge was correct.

¶11

In Pathumma and another Vs. Muhammad, 1986(2) SCC 585

¶12

reiterating the above view the Court said that in revisional jurisdiction the High Court would not be justified in substituting its own view for that of a Magistrate on a question of fact.

¶13

In Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001(9) SCC 631 the Court said:

¶14

"The revision power under the Code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged."

¶15

In Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another, 2004(7) SCC 665, in a matter again arising from the judgment of acquittal, the revisional power of High Court was examined and the Court said:

¶16

"4. Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are group of sections conferring higher and superior courts a sort of supervisory jurisdiction. These powers are required to be exercised sparingly. Though the jurisdiction under Section 401 cannot be invoked to only correct wrong appreciation of evidence and the High Court is not required to act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice."

¶17

On the point of fact, finding given and the view taken by the courts below is plausible view, hence, no interference is called for.

¶18

Having considered the submissions of learned AGA, this Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

The revision is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶21

Order Date :- 7.9.2018 SKD

Lal Chandra Jain v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Chandra Jain 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sintoo Singh Vs State of U.P.

Nem Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ninnu Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Shankar Lal Srivastava Vs State and Others

Abhay Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P.and Others

Gavendra @ Radhe @ Batera Vs State of U.P.