The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging a remand order. It held that since the petitioners have an alternative remedy before the remanded court and the lower courts' findings were plausible, the revision lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed.
The criminal revision was dismissed. Any interim order was vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 195 of 1996
Revisionist :- Rahmat Ali & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Satish Trivedi,R.K.Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1-None is present on behalf of the revisionists even in the revised list/call. Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. is present for the State.
2-Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record and the revision is being decided on merit in the absence of learned counsel for the revisionist.
3-This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionistsRahmat Ali and four others challenging the order dated 28.11.1995 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Siddharth Nagar whereby Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1995 filed by opposite party no. 2-Misbahul Haq was allowed and order dated 21.2.1995 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar in Case No. 1032 of 1993, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Dumariaganj, District Siddharth Nagar was set aside and file was remanded back to decide the application afresh.
4- From perusal of order dated 21.2.1995 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, it transpires that application of co-accused-Rahmat Ali, Shamshul Haq, Ansarul Haq, Israr Ahmad and Nisar Ahmad moved under Section 205 Cr.P.C. was allowed and accused Nijamuddin was absconding, hence the application of Nijamuddin was rejected. Against order dated 21.2.1995, criminal revision was preferred and that was allowed vide order dated 28.11.1995 and file was remanded back to decide the application afresh.
5-From perusal of the record, it is very clear that the revisionists have full opportunity to produce evidence before the trial court and raise all issues, raised before this Court in revision and obtain order from the court concerned. Since the revisionists have an alternative remedy on this issue, therefore, this revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
6-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order and contended that the impugned order is just and legal and there is no illegality or infirmity and the present
criminal revision is bereft of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
7-On the point of fact, both the courts have given concurrent findings of fact and the view taken by both the courts below is plausible view. Hence, no interference is called for in revision.
8-Moreover, 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.
9-This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and order. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
10-The revision is dismissed. Interim order, if any, is vacated.
11-Copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned to proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 6.10.2018 OP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision is maintainable when the revisionist has an alternative remedy and an order was remanded to the lower court.
Whether the revisional court has jurisdiction to set aside findings of fact recorded by the Magistrate and substitute its own findings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State Farm Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Nijjer Agro Foods Ltd.Referred¶138
(2005) 12 SCC 502 · Who else cites this
State of Maharashtra Vs. Jag Mohan Singh Kuldip SinghReferred¶138
2004 (50) ACC 889 (SC)
Munna Devi Vs. State of RajasthanReferred¶138
AIR 2002 SC 107 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rahmat Ali & Others
State Of U.P.
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
