Dismissed

Indrajit Singh v. Mohan Singh and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2019CRLR/1237/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the court dismissed the petition filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against an acquittal, holding that the High Court cannot act as an appellate court to re-appreciate evidence or correct mere errors of law without manifest illegality.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; the acquittal was affirmed.

Indrajit Singh Vs Mohan Singh and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1237 of 1997

¶4

Revisionist :- Indrajit Singh Opposite Party :- Mohan Singh And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- V.S.Rajpoot,V.S.Bajpai

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶6

Sri Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, is present for revisionist.

¶7

This criminal revision under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed aggrieved by judgment and order dated 06.05.1997 passed by 6^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra acquitting the accused-respondents in Criminal Case No. 254 of 1997 under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504 I.P.C.

¶8

Counsel for revisionist submitted that Court below has not examined the evidence properly, but despite repeated query, he could not show any misreading or perverse finding or otherwise illegality or omission of any relevant evidence.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that Court below has not properly examined and appreciated the evidence and, therefore, summoning order is illegal. He tried to take this Court to the judgments and made his endeavor to show that the view taken by Court below in appreciating the evidence is not correct.

¶10

However, I find difficult to accept the above submission for the reason that in revisional jurisdiction this Court cannot sit in appeal and re-appreciate the evidence.

¶11

The judicial review in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not like an appeal. It is a supervisory jurisdiction which is exercised by the Court to correct the manifest error in the orders of subordinate Courts but should not be exercised in a manner so as to turn the Revisional Court in a Court of Appeal. The legislature has differently made provisions for appeal and revision and the distinction of two

¶12

¶13

jurisdictions has to be maintained.

¶14

Construing old Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, pertaining to revisional jurisdiction, Court in D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196 said that revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code ought not to be exercised lightly particularly when it is invoked by private complainant against an order of acquittal which could have been appealed against by the Government under Section 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. In other words, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked merely because the lower Court has taken a wrong view of law or misappreciated the evidence on record.

¶15

In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788 it was held that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court in exceptional cases only when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on a point of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. However, this was also a case in which revisional jurisdiction was invoked against an order of acquittal. If the Court lacks jurisdiction or has excluded evidence which was admissible or relied on inadmissible evidence or material evidence has been overlooked etc., then only this Court would be justified in exercising revisional power and not otherwise.

¶16

The above view has been reiterated in Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707; Khetrabasi Samal Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 272; Satyendra Nath Dutta and another Vs. Ram Narain, AIR 1975 SC 580; Jagannath Choudhary and others Vs. Ramayan Singh and another, 2002(5) SCC 659; and, Johar and others Vs. Mandal Prasad and another, 2008 Cr.L.J. 1627 (S.C.) .

¶17

In Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, 1975(4) SCC 649

¶18

¶19

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.

¶20

In Pathumma and another Vs. Muhammad, 1986(2) SCC 585 reiterating the above view 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.

¶21

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

¶22

"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."

¶23

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 Court said:

¶24

"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

¶25

¶26

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."

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist and gone through the impugned order, I do not find any manifest error or otherwise illegality so as to warrant interference.

¶28

The revision is dismissed.

¶29

Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately. u

¶30

Order Date :- 11.9.2019 PS

Indrajit Singh v. Mohan Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajit Singh v. Mohan Singh and Another

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

Laxman and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sadiq Khoja and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Km. Bibbo Alias Partikchha and Others Vs Smt. Poonam Shukla and Others

Sundar Singh and Others Vs the Iiird a.S.Judge and Another

Rajbanshi and Others Vs State of U.P.

Ram Chandra Vs State of U.P.