Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2503 (PAT)

Syed Reyazuddin v. State of Bihar

2011-12-19

AMARESH KUMAR LAL

body2011
ORAL JUDGMENT Per Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.-The informant petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 14.06.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, VI, Patna in Cr. Appeal No. 64/1997 by which he has been pleased to set aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.03.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in G.R.No.5721/1992 arising out of Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 379/1992 by which the accused opposite party had been convicted under Sections 144 and 427 of the I.P.C. and were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for opposite parties and perused the records. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned appellate Court has not taken the correct view and he has set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court resulting into acquittal of the accused opposite parties even after sufficient evidence against the accused and thus, the learned appellate Court has caused injustice to the informant and this Court should interfere with the impugned order. 4. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in case of Akalu Ahir and others v. Ramdeo Ram, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 583 . 5. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the learned appellate Court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The learned appellate Court has held that the story of the prosecution case appears to be quite absurd and the same is not accepted. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as well as the accused has been considered by the learned appellate Court and has come to the finding that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate its case and therefore, the judgment of conviction has been set aside and the accused persons have been acquitted. There is no manifest error in the judgment of the learned appellate Court and as such, this Court should not interfere with the impugned judgment in its revisional jurisdiction. 6. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh and another, reported in AIR 1968 SC 707 . 7. 6. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh and another, reported in AIR 1968 SC 707 . 7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on the record, it appears that the learned appellate Court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate its case. 8. In case of Akalu Ahir (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 8 that: "......Considering the problem facing the Court in this case in the document of this scheme, the High Court when approached by a private party for exercising its power of revision from an order of acquittal, should appropriately refrain from interfering except when there is a glaring legal defect of a serious nature which has resulted in grave failure of justice. It is not expected to act under Section 435/439, Cr.P.C. as if it is a hearing on appeal in spite of the wide language under Section 435 which empowers it to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of a finding, sentence or order and as to the regularity of any proceeding and also in spite of the fact that under Section 439 it can exercise inter alia the power conferred on a Court of appeal under Section 423, Cr.P.C. The power being discretionary, it has to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily..." 9. The decision reported in Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh and another, reported in AIR 1968 SC 707 has also been considered in case of Akalu Ahir and others v. Ramdeo Ram, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 583 . 10. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any manifest illegality or the gross miscarriage of justice in the finding of the learned appellate Court. As such, the decision in the case of Akalu Ahir and others v. Ramdeo Ram, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 583 does not help the petitioner. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.