Opinion in Criminal Revision Application regarding failure to prove possession for criminal trespass. Court held revisional jurisdiction not warranted.
Revision application summarily 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 107 OF 2006
Sudhaakr Haribhau Belwalkar ... Applicant.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent.
Shri Abdul Kedar h/f Girish Kulkarni for the
applicant.
Shri Rajesh More for the respondent.
CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATED: 21.12.2006.
P.C.:
. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant.
Perused the application and the annexures thereto
including the impugned order. The complainant
could not prove that when alleged house trespass
was committed he was in possession of the
premises. Neither any document is produced to
prove physical possession nor vendor- Smt.
Mayadevi Singh or anybody else was examined to
prove possession of the premises. In such
circumstances, conclusion that ingredient of
offence of criminal trespass are not made out,
does not warrant interferernce in the revisional
jurisdiction. This Court cannot reappreciate or
reappraise the material and arrive at a different
conclusion in limited jurisdiction.
2. Revision application is, therefore,
summarily dismissed.
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether revisional jurisdiction can interfere when complainant fails to prove possession required for criminal trespass.
Whether this Court can reappraise material evidence in a limited revisional proceeding.
Sudhaakr Haribhau Belwalkar
The State of Maharashtra
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court