HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. – 34
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 330 of 1999
Revisionist :- Narendra @ Sharma And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Bharti
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for revisionists and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by the judgments and orders dated 25.11.1998 and 09.02.1999. The Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 25.11.1998 convicted revisionists and sentenced them to undergo two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 452 IPC and one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 354 IPC. Thereagainst, revisionists preferred Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1998 and Appellate Court vide order dated 09.02.1999 dismissed appeal and confirmed order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court. Being aggrieved the revisionists preferred present revision.
3. The only argument advanced is that PW-1, Smt. Shakuntala, the victim herself admitted that on the question of giving passage there was a dispute between accused and parents of PW-1 and this shows that there was already an enmity on account whereof accused were implicated falsely.
4. However, this aspect has been considered by both the Courts below and have recorded concurrent findings against revisionists and nothing could be shown from aforesaid findings that the same are perverse or contrary to record so as to justify interference. In revisional jurisdiction this Court cannot sit in appeal and re-appreciate the evidence.
5. The judicial review in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not like an appeal. It is a supervisory jurisdiction which is exercised by the Court to correct the manifest error in the orders of subordinate courts but should not be exercised in a manner so as to turn the Revisional court in a Court of Appeal. The legislature has differently made provisions for appeal and revision and the distinction of two jurisdictions has to be maintained.
6. Construing old Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, pertaining to revisional jurisdiction, the Court in D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 Sc 196 said that revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code ought not to be exercised lightly particularly when it is invoked by private complainant against an order of acquittal which could have been appealed against by the Government under Section 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. In other words, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of law or misappreciated the evidence on record.
7. In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788 it was held that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court in exceptional cases only when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on a point of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. However, this was also a case in which revisional jurisdiction was invoked against an order of acquittal. If the Court lacks jurisdiction or has excluded evidence which was admissible or relied on inadmissible evidence or material evidence has been overlooked etc., then only this Court would be justified in exercising revisional power and not otherwise.
8. The above view has been reiterated in Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707; Khetrabasi Samal Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 272; Satyendra Nath Dutta and another Vs. Ram Narain, AIR 1975 SC 580; Jagannath Choudhary and others Vs. Ramayan Singh and another, 2002(5) SCC 659; and, Johar and others Vs. Mandal Prasad and another, 2008 Cr.L.J. 1627 (S.C.).
9. In Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, 1975(4) SCC 649 the Court reminded that jurisdiction of High Court in criminal revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction in revision the Court would be justified in refusing to re-appreciate evidence for determining whether the concurrent findings of fact reached by learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge was correct.
10. In Pathumma and another Vs. Muhammad, 1986(2) SCC 585 reiterating the above view the Court said that in revisional jurisdiction the High Court would not be justified in substituting its own view for that of a Magistrate on a question of fact.
11. In Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001(9) SCC 631 the Court said:
“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.”
12. In Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another, 2004(7) SCC 665, in a matter again arising from the judgment of acquittal, the revisional power of High Court was examined and the Court said:
“4. Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are group of sections conferring higher and superior courts a sort of supervisory jurisdiction. These powers are required to be exercised sparingly. Though the jurisdiction under Section 401 cannot be invoked to only correct wrong appreciation of evidence and the High Court is not required to act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice.”
13. Having heard learned counsel for revisionists and gone through the impugned judgments, I do not find any manifest error or otherwise illegality so as to warrant interference.
14. The revision is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated
15. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.
Order Date :- 30.10.2019