Revision against conviction of Vijendra Siyag under Section 420 IPC for a post-dated cheque whose signature mismatched bank records. Both courts had concurrently convicted. Applying settled principles limiting revisional interference, the High Court found no perversity or grave error and dismissed the revision.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:18716]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 251/2020
Prem Kumar S/o Mani Ram, Aged About 31 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Binzhwayla, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
Hnas RajChawla |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
Muktyar Khan, PP |
| Mr. | Mohd,. Iqbal For | |
| Mr. | Harish Purohit |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Judgment
Reserved On 20/ 04/2024 Pronounced On 01/05/2024
01fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk ;g fuxjkuh fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; vfrfjDr eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] ineiqj] Jhxaxkuxj }kjk LVsV cuke fotsUnz flgkx uEcjh QkStnkjh la[;k 424@2012] esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 28-10-2017 ftlds }kjk vfHk;qDr fotsUnz flgkx dks /kkjk 420 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa nks"keqDr djkj fn;k x;k o ml fu.kZ; ds fo:) dh xbZ vihy la[;k 3@18 izse dqekj cuke fotsUnz flgkx o vU; esa vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] Jhdj.kiqj] ftyk Jhxaxkuxj }kjk fu.kZ; fnukad 05-12-2019 dks ikfjr dj vihy [kkfjt djus vkSj fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vkns'k o fu.kZ; dh iqf"V djus ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh xbZ gSA
02la{ksi esa ekeys ds rF; bl izdkj ls gS fd fuxjkuhdrkZ&eqLrxhl izse dqekj dh vksj ls ,d bLrxklk U;kf;d eftLVªsV] ineiqj esa vUrxZr /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk izLrqr dj ;g fuosnu fd;k fd fnukad 01-03-2010 dks 7]00]000@& :i;s fotsUnz flgkx dks crkSj dtZ fn;k Fkk] tks Hkksekjke o gjfleju ds le{k jde nh Fkh o ,d izksuksV fotsUnz us fy[kdj fn;kA nks o"kZ ds i'pkr fnukad 05-03-2012 dks jde vnk djus ds fy, dgk rks ewy jde
[2024:RJ-JD:18716]
[CRLR-251/2020]
(2 of 7)
e; C;kt tksM+dj 10]00]000@& :i;s dk iksLV MsVsM pSd uEcj 889617] ,l-ch-chts- 'kk[kk ifCyd ikdZ] Jhxaxkuxj ds vius [kkrs la[;k 61023861017 dk fnukad 31-08-2012 dk fn;k tks 31-08-2012 dks eqLrxhl }kjk vius ,l-ch-ch-ts- 'kk[kk cha>ok;yk esa is'k fd;k x;k] ftlij fnukad 07-09-2012 dks lwpuk nh xbZ fd pSd tkjhdrkZ ds gLrk{kj fHkUu gS ,oa vi;kZIr jkf'k gSA ftl ij eqLrxhl gjfleju dks lkFk ysdj mlh jkst 'kke dks 5 cts feyk rks ;g Lohdkj fd;k fd pSd esa ntZ jde cSad esa ugha gS vkSj gLrk{kj cSad esa ntZ gLrk{kj ls fHkUu gSA bl ij dwV jpuk dj pSd nLrkost cuk;k tkuk crk;kA bl bLrxklk dks 156¼3½ lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr Fkkuk iqfyl ?kewMokyh dks Hkstk x;kA ftl ij ,Q-vkbZ-vkj la[;k 143@2012 ntZ dj rQrh'k dh xbZA ckn rQrh'k U;kf;d eftLVªsV ineiqj esa pkyku /kkjk 420 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa is'k fd;k x;kA
03izdj.k esa cgl pktZ lquh tkdj vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 420 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk vkjksi vyx ls fojfpr dj lquk;k o le>k;k x;k] ftls lqu dj vfHk;qDr }kjk vkjksi ls badkj fd;k vkSj dqy 9 xokg ds c;ku djokdj lk{; vfHk;kstu lekIr dh xbZA vfHk;qDr ds c;ku eqfYte fy, x,A dksbZ lk{; lQkbZ vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls is'k ugha dh xbZA cgl vafre lquh tkdj fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 28-10-2017 ds }kjk /kkjk 420 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk vijk/k lkfcr ugha gksuk ekurs gq, vfHk;qDr dks nks"keqDr djkj fn;k x;kA
04mDr fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k Jhdj.kiqj ds le{k izLrqr dh xbZA tks vihy vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k Jhdj.kiqj }kjk QkStnkjh vihy la[;k 3@2018] izse dqekj cuke fotsUnz flgkx o vU; esa fu.kZ; fnukad 05-12-2019 dks ikfjr djrs gq, vihy [kkfjt dh xbZ vkSj v/ khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh xbZA
05fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk viuh fuxjkuh esa ;g fuosnu fd;k fd foPkkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk lk{; ,oa nLrkost ij fopkj fd, cxSj fu.kZ; ikfjr djus ls fu.kZ; fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA bl ekeys esa ;g Li"V gS fd vfHk;qDr }kjk tkucw>dj QthZ gLrk{kj dj 10]00]000@& :i;s dk pSd tkjh fd;kA blls /kkjk 420 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk vijk/k c[kwch izekf.kr gSA ih-MCY;w02 o ih-MCY;w03 dh lk{; ds eqrkfcd 7]00]000@& :i;s fotsUnz flgkx }kjk izse dqekj ls izkIr dj izksuksV fy[kk x;k vkSj fotsUnz flgkx }kjk 10]00]000@& :i;s dk pSd fn;k x;kA izse dqekj dks pSd dh jkf'k ugha feyhA bl ekeys esa cSad ds vf/kdkjh ih-MCY;w 04 dh lk{; ds
[2024:RJ-JD:18716]
[CRLR-251/2020]
(3 of 7)
eqrkfcd pSd ij gLrk{kj cSad ,dkmaV ds fjdkWMZ ds gLrk{kjksa ls feleSp gksuk ik;k x;k gSA ih-MCY;w09 dh lk{; Hkh vfHk;qDr ds fo:) Fkh] mlds ckotwn Hkh vfHk;qDr dks nks"keqDr djkj fn;k x;k] tks fu.kZ; fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gS vkSj fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; o vihy U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fujLr djrs gq, vfHk;qDr&izR;FkhZ la[;k 2 dks /kkjk 420 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa nks"kh Bgjk, tkus o 10 yk[k :i;s 18 izfr'kr C;kt ds lfgr crkSj tqekZuk fnyk, tkus dh izkFkZuk dhA
06cgl fuxjkuh lquh xbZA
07fo}ku vf/koDrk fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk fuxjkuh esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks vius rdksZa ds :i esa izLrqr fd;kA
08fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd o ;ksX; vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls bldk l[r fojks/k djrs gq, ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd bl ekeys esa nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa dk fu.kZ; ,d leku gS vkSj concurrent findings gksus ls fuxjkuh U;k;ky; }kjk bu fu.kZ;ksa esa gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj fuxjkuhdrkZ&vfHk;qDr dh fuxjkuh [kkfjt fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;kA
09eSaus mijksDr rdksZa ij euu fd;k] i=koyh dk lko/kkuhiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA
10bl ekeys esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; leku gSA nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa dh concurrent findings gSA concurrent findings ds ekeys esa fof/kd fLFkfr dk mYys[k fd;k tkuk bl ekeys esa U;k;ksfpr gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Malkeet Singh Gill vs The State Of Chhattisgarh CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 915/2022, Decided on 05-07-2022 ds iSjk la[;k 9 esa fuEukuqlkj mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS%&
“9. So far as Issue 1 is concerned i.e. as to whether the appellant got married with Smt Ranju Sarma, is a pure question of fact. All the three courts below have given concurrent finding regarding the factum of marriage and its validity. It has been held to be a valid marriage. It is a settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a
(4 of 7)
[2024:RJ-JD:18716]
[CRLR-251/2020]
regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by re appreciating the evidence.
“8. ….The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure.”
11mijksDr ds vykok e/; izns'k mPp U;k;ky; ds tcyiqj ihB dh CRIMINAL REVISION No.5044/2022 Pronounced on 17.08.2023 VIVEK LODHI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ds ekeys esa mPp U;k;ky; ds /kkjk 397] 401 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj izkIr 'kfDr;ksa ij fopkj fd;k vkSj iSjk la[;k 5 ls 8 esa fuEukuqlkj fofHkUu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k vkSj fof/kd fLFkfr dks Li"V fd;k x;k%&
(5 of 7)
[2024:RJ-JD:18716]
[CRLR-251/2020]
6.In Duli Chand (supra), Hon’ble apex court has held as under:-
“5.........The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and,therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. .....” 7.In R. Soundirarasu (supra), Hon’ble apex court has held asunder:-“75. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC631: (AIR 2002 SC 107: 2002 cri LJ 225 (SC)), this Court held asunder:-
"3.....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.". Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. There revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure.”
(6 of 7)
[2024:RJ-JD:18716]
[CRLR-251/2020]
8.In Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand (supra), Hon’ble apex court has held as under:-“21.In embarking upon the minutest reexamination of the whole evidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of the self-restraint that he was required to exercise in are vision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. On behalf of the accused, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice Sabharwal) is a party, i.e.Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 1997 decided on 9.3.2004[Ram Briksh v. Ambika Yadav]. That was the case in which the High Court interfered in revision because material evidence was overlooked by the courts below.22.The Revisional Court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 410 Cr.P.C.Section 401 Cr.P.C. is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of Appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. Section 397 Cr.P.C. confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court."It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 Cr.P.C. conferring powers of Appellate Court on the Revisional Court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 Cr.P.C., read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power.”
12mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ls ;g fof/kd fLFkfr Li"V gS fd tc fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; dh fdlh QkStnkjh ekeys esa concurrent findings gks] ml voLFkk esa nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa dk fu.kZ; totally perverse dh Js.kh esa vkrk gks vFkok grave error of law or procedure dk
(7 of 7)
[2024:RJ-JD:18716]
[CRLR-251/2020]
ekeyk gks] ml voLFkk esa gh mPp U;k;ky; dks lk{; dk Re-appreciation djuk pkfg, vkSj fu.kZ; esa gLr{ksi djuk pkfg,] vU;Fkk ughaA
13mDr fof/kd fLFkfr dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, gLrxr ekeys ij fopkj fd;k x;kA gLrxr ekeys esa fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk viuh fuxjkuh esa dsoy xokgku dh lk{; dk gokyk nsrs gq, mudh lk{; ij fo'okl ugha djus ds vk/kkj ij fuxjkuh izLrqr dh xbZ gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa eq[; vk/kkj ;g fy;k x;k gS fd izR;FkhZ ds gLrk{kjksa] pSd ds gLrk{kjksa dh tkap fo'ks"kK ls ugha djokbZA blds vykok bl ekeys esa cSad ds xokgku }kjk tks lk{; nh xbZ] mlesa cSad ds fjdkWMZ ls pSd ds gLrk{kj feleSp gksus vkSj vi;kZIr jkf'k gksus ds vk/kkj ij pSd vuknfjr fd;k x;k gSA dsoy ek= cSad vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk pSd ij gLrk{kj feleSp gksus dk dgus ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 420 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk vijk/k lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA bl ekeys esa tkucw>dj vfHk;qDr }kjk xyr gLrk{kj fd, x, gksa] bl ckcr dksbZ Bksl lk{; fjdkWMZ ij ugah gSA eqLrxhl }kjk tks lk{; nh xbZ] mlesa izksuksV ds 2 lky i'pkr pSd gLrk{kj dj nsuk crk;k vkSj ih-MCY;w 09 gjfleju flag }kjk fy[kki<+h ds le; gh pSd ns nsuk ftjg esa crk;kA
14bl izdkj pSd dc fn;k bl laca/k esa eqLrxhl o ih-MCy;w 09 dh lk{; esa fojks/kkHkk"k gSA bl ekeys esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dh lk{; Hkh ugha djokus dk vk/kkj Hkh fy;k x;k gSA ,slh voLFkk esa bl ekeys esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; totally perverse dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrs] rFkk bl ekeys esa grave error of law or procedure gksuk Hkh ugha ik;k tkrk gSA bl dkj.k ls gLrxr ekeys esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ;ksa esa gLr{ksi dj fu.kZ; dks fujLr fd;k tkuk fof/klEer izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vr% fuxjkuhdrkZ dh fuxjkuh [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
15vr% fuxjkuhdrkZ izse dqekj dh fuxjkuh [kkfjt dh tkrh gS vkSj fopkj.k U;k;ky; vfrfjDr eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] ineiqj] Jhxaxkuxj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 28-10-2017 o vihyh; U;k;ky; vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] Jhdj.kiqj] ftyk Jhxaxkuxj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 05-12-2019 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA
16fu.kZ; dh ,d izfr ds lkFk nksuksa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa dh i=kofy;ka ykSVkbZ tk,aA
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J
48-mayank/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court convicting the accused under Section 420 IPC for issuing a forged cheque.
Whether the revisional power under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC permits re-appreciation of evidence absent perversity or grave error of law or procedure.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Malkeet Singh Gill v. The State of ChhattisgarhRelied on¶10
Malkeet Singh Gill vs The State Of Chhattisgarh CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 915/2022
Vivek Lodhi v. The State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶11
VIVEK LODHI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, CRIMINAL REVISION No.5044/2022
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Prem Kumar S/o Mani Ram
State, Through P.P.
Vijendra Siyag S/o Bhiyaram
Yogendra Kumar Purohit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
