Dismissed

Ram Gopal and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2019CRLR/1937/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. challenging a conviction for offences under Sections 304B, 308, 323, 324, 504, and 506 IPC. The Court held that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and cannot function as an appeal. In the absence of manifest illegality, glaring procedural defect, or perjury, the revision was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ram Gopal and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1937 of 2004

¶3

Revisionist :- Ram Gopal And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Harish Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Case called out in the revised list. No one appears on behalf of the revisionists to press this revision. Learned A.G.A. representing the opposite party no.1 is present.

¶6

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 16.03.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Jhansi in Session Trial No. 05 of 2003 (State Vs. Nand Lal and others) arising out of case Crime No. 376 of 2005 under Sections 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Barua Sagar, District-Jhansi whereby the accused/opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been convicted under Sections 304B, 308, 323, 324, 504 506 I.P.C. and therefore, sentenced for offence under Section 304B I.P.C. five years Rigorous Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000/-, for offence under Section 308 I.P.C. 3 years imprisonment, for offence under Section 323 I.P.C. six months imprisonment, for offence under Section 324 I.P.C. one year imprisonment. They have further been convicted under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. and therefore sentenced for offence under Section 504 I.P.C. one year imprisonment and lastly for offence under Section 506 I.P.C. two years imprisonment .

¶7

The present revision has been filed with a prayer for enhancement of sentence. Perused the record.

¶8

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 jurisdictions has to be maintained.

¶9

Construing old Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, pertaining to revisional jurisdiction, the Court in D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196 said that revisional

¶10

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 mis-appreciated the evidence on record.

¶11

6 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.

¶12

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.).

¶13

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 reappreciation 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

"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."

¶17

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:

¶18

"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."

¶19

In absence of anything to show as to what evidence has not been examined or the finding of fact recorded by Court below is perverse or contrary to material on record, no interference is called for.

¶20

In view of above, revision lacks merit. Dismissed.

¶21

Certify this judgment to the lower court immediately.

¶22

Order Date :- 2.8.2019 YK

Ram Gopal and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ram Gopal and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Juned Ahmad @ Pyare Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sri Kailash Shanker Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahu Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Others