The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging an order of acquittal. It held that revision is a supervisory jurisdiction, not an appeal, and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or correct wrong views of law unless there is a manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice.
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. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2817 of 2005
Revisionist :- Naresh Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- K.K. Tripathi,Amit Kumar Singh,Sudhanshu Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
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.
7 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.
"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."
"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."
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can re-appreciate evidence when exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
Whether the acquittal suffered by the appellants was erroneous or perverse warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satyendra Nath Dutta and another Vs. Ram Narain, AIR 1975 SC 580Explained¶14
Jagannath Choudhary and others Vs. Ramayan Singh and another, 2002(5) SCC 659Explained¶14
Johar and others Vs. Mandal Prasad and another, 2008 Cr.L.J. 1627 (S.C.)Explained¶14
Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, 1975(4) SCC 649Explained¶15
Pathumma and another Vs. Muhammad, 1986(2) SCC 585Explained¶16
Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001(9) SCC 631Explained¶17
Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another, 2004(7) SCC 665Explained¶20
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Naresh Singh
State Of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
Manish Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
