Dismissed

Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC17 May 2022CRLP/6903/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging orders under Section 133 CrPC and a criminal revision. citing settled law that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or substitute the Court's opinion for that of a subordinate court absent perversity or failure of justice.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6903 of 2000

¶3

Petitioner :- Mahendra Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. None has appeared on behalf of respondent no.03.

¶6

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the judgement and order dated 18.04.1994, passed by Additional City Magistrate (Ist), Aligarh, under Section 133 CrPC P.S. Quarsi, District Aligarh, as well as against the order dated 14.08.2000, passed in Criminal Revision No.228/1994 (Mahendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others).

¶7

Perusal of record shows that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 133 CrPC on 17.07.1992 before the court of Sub-divisional Magistrate Koil, Aligarh. In those proceedings, conditional order dated 22.03.1993 was passed under Section 133 CrPC against opposite party no.4 to 6. After hearing in the matter, the said conditional order dated 23.03.1993 was discharged and the application of petitioner was rejected by the court of Additional City Magistrate, Aligarh vide impugned order dated 18.04.1994. By the said order, court has also directed that on the basis of evidence it has been established that petitioner/revisioniost has obstructed the public way and thus, the conditional order under Section 133 (1) CrPC was issued against him. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred criminal revision before the Sessions Court but that revision was also dismissed vide impugned order dated

¶8

14.08.2000.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the impugned orders are against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. It has been submitted that respondent no.4 to 6 have made an attempt to open the door in the private gallery of petitioner and in that connection petitioner has filed a suit before the Civil Court but the court below did not consider the said fact and that conditional order against private respondents was discharged merely on the basis of oral statements of witnesses produced by the private respondents. Learned counsel submitted that the court of Additional City Magistrate, Aligarh did not consider the evidence in correct perspective and committed error by rejecting the application of petitioner. Similarly Revisional Court also committed error by rejecting the revision.

¶10

Learned AGA submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Further, the evidence cannot be appreciated in jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

It is well settled that scope of judicial review in such matters where the orders of Courts below are assailed before this Court in a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is very limited. This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. The power under article 227 of the Constitution does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 the Apex Court held:

¶12

"Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere."

¶13

A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215 and observed that the power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. Similarly in case Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 38 the Apex Court held that this Court has very limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution and even the errors of law cannot be corrected in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power can be used sparingly when it comes to the conclusion that the Authority/Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction. The High Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decision. For interference, there must be a case of flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or where order of the Tribunal, etc. has resulted in grave injustice. For interference under Article 227, the finding of facts recorded by the Authority should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and de hors the factual and legal position on record. In this connection reference may be made to Nibaran Chandra Bag Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895; Rukmanand Bairoliya Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., AIR 1971 SC 746; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC 1896; Laxmikant R. Bhojwani Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel & ors., (1997) 7 SCC 300; M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. Vs.

¶14

Sub-Judicial Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749; and Virendra Kashinath Ravat & ors. Vs. Vinayak N. Joshi & ors. (1999) 1 SCC 47).

¶15

It is well settled that power under Article 227 is of the judicial superintendence which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever erroneous those may be, unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached them. (Chandra Bhushan Vs. Beni Prasad & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 70; Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate & ors. Vs. Raichand Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171).

¶16

In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-opeative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is no justification for the High Court to substitute its view for the opinion of the Authorities/ Courts below as the same is not permissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. It must be remembered that jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is not appealable but supervisory. Therefore, it cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by Courts below unless there is no evidence to support findings or the findings are totally perverse. (Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer, AIR 2000 SC 931).

¶17

In Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union (2000) 4 SCC 245, the Court observed that it is impermissible for the Writ Court to re-appreciate evidence liberally and drawing conclusions on its own on pure questions of fact for the reason that it is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by Tribunal. The findings of fact recorded by the fact finding authority duly constituted for the purpose ordinarily should be considered to have become final. The same cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of

¶18

having based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of Writ Court to warrant those findings. At any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose no interference is called for. Even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possibly be taken the High Court can not interfere.

¶19

In Union of India Vs. Rajendra Prabhu, (2001) 4 SCC 472, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot re-appreciate the evidence nor it can substitute its subjective opinion in place of the findings of Authorities below.

¶20

In Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003) 6 SCC 675, it was held that in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227, High Court can correct errors of jurisdiction committed by subordinate Courts. It also held that when subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned, the Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. However, it also said that be it a writ of certiorari or exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law; or, a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

¶21

In case of Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006 ) 8 SCC 294, it was held that while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in

¶22

appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions.

¶23

Thus, it is apparent that the power under article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. This Power is not in the nature of power of appellate authority enabling re-appreciation of evidence. It should not alter the conclusion reached by the Competent Statutory Authority merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. As observed in Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF and others Vs. Surinder Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 244, only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Articles 226 or 227.

¶24

In the instant case the main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court of Magistrate did not appreciate the evidence in correct perspective and dismissed the application of petitioner by drawing wrong conclusion that applicant was encroaching on public land. After perusing the record, it can not be said that the finding recorded by the court of Magistrate is illegal or perverse or it is not based on evidence. The finding of the learned Magistrate has already been upheld by the revisional court. Further, as observed earlier, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence nor it

¶25

can substitute its subjective opinion in place of the findings of Authorities below. It is impermissible for the Writ Court to reappreciate evidence liberally and drawing conclusions on its own on pure questions of fact for the reason that it is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by Tribunal. The findings of fact recorded by the fact finding authority/court should be considered to have become final. In view of aforesaid, no interference is warranted in the impugned orders in this petition.

¶26

Petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶27

Order Date :- 17.5.2022 Neeraj

¶28

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.06.06 18:08:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Rahman Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zuilfikar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Shanker @ Rauki and 6 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Ram Dulare Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

Prem Shankar Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another