In Criminal Revision No. 1594/1995, the High Court dismissed the petition seeking to quash an acquittal. Holding that revision jurisdiction under CrPC is narrow and the trial Court's view was legally possible, the Court refused to interfere with the order acquitting accused nos. 2 to 10.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed.
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. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1594 of 1995
Revisionist :- Riyasat Opposite Party :- Sharafat And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- G.C. Saxena
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
List revised. None appears for the revisionist to press this revision.
The matter is very old one, which is pending since 1995. With the assistance of learned A.G.A. I have through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought by the revisionist.
This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 02.11.1995 passed by learned VIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor in S.T.No. 532 of 1993 (State Vs. Sharafat and others) under Sections 147, 364, 302, 149, 201, 149 I.P.C. whereby the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 10 have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
It has been averred in the instant revision that the trail Court has erred in disbelieving the testimony of the witnesses. He has further argued that whole approach of the trial Court, acquitting the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 10 is incorrect. The impugned judgment and order suffers from gross illegality, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and, therefore, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397/401 CrPC, should set-aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court, and remit the matter back to the trial Court for trial afresh.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the trial Court has correctly analyzed the evidence, and has come to correct conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He has further submitted that the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the trial Court after analyzing the evidence in detail, which is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397/401 CrPC. He has further submitted that the view taken by the trial Court is not an impossible view and, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal, and he has prayed for dismissal of the revision.
I have considered the pleadings made in the present revision, submissions advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent-State, including the evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case.
The revision jurisdiction of the High Court as contemplated under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. operates within narrow limits and can be exercised only in exceptional cases where interests of public justice require interference for the correction of gross miscarriage of justice. It cannot be exercised because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated evidence on record. The revision power of the High Court is to be exercised when there is manifest error of law or glaring defect in the procedure.
In the instant case close scrutiny of evidence reveals that on the basis of evidence, learned trial Court has rendered that the prosecution version was not established. Considering entire evidence, it cannot be said that findings rendered by learned trial Court are perverse or suffers from any illegality or error of jurisdiction. It is well settled that the revision Court generally would not re-appreciate evidence and would not substitute findings of fact unless the findings of Court below is not based on evidence or suffers from perversity or illegality. It is also well settled that if on the basis of evidence two views are possible, the view favourable to accused persons has to be taken. In the instant case, considering entire evidence it cannot be said that impugned judgment and order suffers from any such illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction so as to warrant any interference by this Court.
The present revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned Court below.
Order Date :- 16.11.2022 S.Ali
Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.11.18 14:21:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should interfere with the order of acquittal under Sections 397/401 CrPC by reappreciating the evidence or substituting the finding of fact.
Whether the findings of the trial Court were perverse, illegal, or suffered from any error of jurisdiction.
Whether there is any gross miscarriage of justice warranting the setting aside of the acquittal ordered.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Riyasat
State
Dr. Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
