The Criminal Revision Court dismissed a revision preferred against the framing of charges for theft and criminal breach of trust. The court held that the absence of the revisionist did not warrant default dismissal and decided the matter on merits, finding no jurisdictional error.
Revision dismissed; stay order, if any, is 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. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1422 of 1993
Revisionist :- Gyan Chand And Another Opposite Party :- State And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- V.C. Tewari,A.K.Awasthi
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
List has been revised.
Revisionists or their learned counsel is not present while learned A.G.A. is present.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.
This criminal revision has been preferred against framing of charges dated 16.8.1993, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Karvi, District Banda, in Case No.1694/IV/91 against the revisionists, u/s 379 and 411 IPC & section 26 of Forest Act arising out of crime no.90 of 1991, P.S. Manikpur, District Banda.
In the case of Santosh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that after admission of criminal revision, there is no procedure for dismissing the same in default and even if the revisionist is absent, the revision cannot be dismissed in default but it has to be decided on merit, so, this revision is decided according to its merit.
The revisionists have filed the instant revision on the following grounds; that there is no evidence against the revisionists except the evidence of coaccused Ghan Shyam; that revisionists are innocent and have not committed any offence; that the revisionists have falsely been implicated in this case and the charges against them are baseless and the revision is likely to be allowed.
Scope of revision is very limited and only to see whether the order passed by learned trial court as well as learned appellate court is within their jurisdiction or not. The revisional court has no power to appreciate the evidence as adduced in the court below. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgement and order. Finding is based on the appraisal of evidence on record. So, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order.
Consequently, revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Revision is dismissed.
Stay order, if any, is vacated.
A copy of this order be transmitted to the learned court below for compliance within one month.
Order Date :- 23.1.2019
m.a.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the framing of charges under sections 379 and 411 IPC and section 26 of Forest Act be set aside on the ground of lack of evidence?
Whether the criminal revision dated 16.8.1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Karvi, be allowed?
Whether the revisionist's absence warrants dismissal in default or a decision on merits?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Santosh vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Santosh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307 · Who else cites this
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
