In a criminal revision challenging non-framing of charges under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, the court held that revisional jurisdiction is limited to testing legality and propriety, not to act as an appellate court. The revision was dismissed for lack of merit.
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. - 2068 of 1998 Revisionist :- Munna Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- A.R.B. Kher Counsel for Opposite Party :- U. Shandiliya,V. Shandilya
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
None is present on behalf of the revisionist even in the revised list/call. Learned AGA is present.
Heard learned AGA and perused the record. The revision is being decided on merit.
This criminal revision has been preferred by Munna Lal against Bhikkham @ Mohd. Hanif and others and State of U.P. challenging the order dated 26.09.1998 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi in S.T. No. 17 of 1998, whereby charge under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act against O.P. No.2 to 6 has not been framed.
From a perusal of the grounds of the revision, it transpires that this revision was filed on the ground that against the O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 charge sheet was submitted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC and 3(2)V SC/ST Act but by the court concerned charges were framed only under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/149 IPC and charges were not framed under Sections 3(2)V of SC/ST Act. Hence this revision. In this point, section 216 Cr.P.C. is relevant and quoted below:
" 216. Court may alter charge —(1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.
(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.
(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge.
(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.
(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded."
From perusal of section 216 Cr.P.C. it is very clear that charge may be altered or add at any time before the judgment is pronounced. Hence revisionist has opportunity to move application before the court concerned alleging all pleas raised before this Court and it is excepted by the court concerned he will decide the application in accordance with law.
Learned AGA has submitted that order passed by revisional Court is just and proper.
The Apex Court in the cases 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.
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. The revision is dismissed.
Let lower court records, if summoned, be sent back to the court concerned.
Copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 6.10.2018 Imroz
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court in revision can direct framing of charges regarding Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act if not framed earlier.
Whether a revisional court has jurisdiction to direct a court subordinate to it to frame charges which remain pending.
Whether a revision petition lacks merit if the lower court has acted within its legal jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State Farm Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Nijjer Agro Foods Ltd.Explained¶14
(2005) 12 SCC 502 · Who else cites this
State of Maharashtra Vs. Jag Mohan Singh Kuldip SinghExplained¶14
2004 (50) ACC 889 (SC)
Munna Devi Vs. State of RajasthanExplained¶14
AIR 2002 SC 107 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Munna Lal
State Of U.P.
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
