Dismissed

Riazuddin and Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2022CRLR/840/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC challenged the conviction and sentencing of the revisionist for voluntarily causing hurt while committing robbery. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the trial court's findings were based on evidence and did not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed. The accused was directed to deposit the fine before the trial court within 45 days.

Riazuddin and Others Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 840 of 1996 Revisionist :- Riazuddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjiv Ratna,Ainakashi Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶2

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶3

List revised. None appears for the revisionist to press this revision.

¶4

The matter is very old one, which is pending since 1996. With the assistance of learned A.G.A. I have through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought by the revisionist.

¶5

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 13.06.1996 passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1992 (Riazuddin alias Munney anbd others Vs. State of U.P.) whereby Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1992 (Zakir Vs. State of U.P.) connected with Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1992 (Riyazuddin alias Munney), connected with Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1992 (Riyazur-rahman Vs. State of U.P. filed by the revisionist has been dismissed affirming the Judgement and order dated 28.10.1992 passed by learned IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in Criminal Case No. 1755 of 1991 (State Vs. Riazuddin ) whereby sentencing the revisionist under Section 394 I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment of 5 years R.I. along with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default in payment of fine to further undergo for imprisonment of three months R.I.

¶6

It has been averred in the instant revision that the trail Court has erred in believing the testimony of the witnesses. He has further argued that whole approach of the trial Court, convicting and sentencing the accused-revisionist 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 Courts below be set aside and the accusedrevisionist is liable to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

¶7

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 proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-revisionist. 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 Courts below is not an impossible view and, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the order of conviction, and he has prayed for dismissal of the revision.

¶8

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

¶9

case.

¶10

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.

¶11

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 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 reappreciate 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 orders suffer from any such illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction so as to warrant any interference by this Court.

¶12

In view of above, the instant revision lacks merit and is, accordingly dismissed .

¶13

In case, the accused-revisionist has not deposited the amount of fine, he is directed to deposit the amount of fine before the concerned Court below, as directed by the trial Court within a period of 45 days from today.

¶14

Office is directed to transmit the record of trial Court as well as copy of the judgement to the Court below.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.9.2022/Md Faisal

¶16

Digitally signed by MOHD FAISAL Date: 2022.09.23 15:54:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Riazuddin and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riazuddin and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lokendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Seema Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Janak Dhari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

M. Chandra Vs State

Krishna Bihari Tripathi and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Wahid Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others