Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2828 (ALL)

Munuwa v. Parshuram

2019-12-19

MANISH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Manish Kumar, J. 1. Case has been called in the revised list. No one is present on behalf of any of the parties. Learned A.G.A. is present. 2. Office has reported some defect but not exactly what is the defect in the revision. From the perusal of records, there is delay of few days in filing of the revision. The delay in filing of present criminal revision is condoned. 3. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.10.1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba in Case No. 2456 of 1997 acquitting the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of the offence under sections 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C. The prosecution case is that at 5:00 p.m. in the evening of 22.1.1993, the complainant Munuwa was in his field alongwith his wife, sons and daughters, the accused Parasuram, Juguva and Kishori armed with lathis started quarrelling with him and started beating with lathis. Against the said incident, an F.I.R. was lodged and Crime Case No. 2456 of 1997, under sections 323, 325 and 504 of I.P.C. was registered. 4. In the said case, the judgment and order has been passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 6.10.1999 acquitting all the accused persons against which the present criminal revision has been preferred. 5. Learned A.G.A. has argued that the judgment has been passed after appreciation of evidence available on the record and that no such incident has occurred as alleged by the complainant. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned A.G.A. and perused the judgment passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate which is impugned in the present criminal revision as well as examined the grounds taken in the present criminal revision. 7. 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 made different provisions for appeal and revision and the distinction of two jurisdiction has to be maintained. 8. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. The legislature has made different provisions for appeal and revision and the distinction of two jurisdiction has to be maintained. 8. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of 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 mis-appreciated the evidence on record. 9. The law has been settled in catena of decisions wherein it has been held that there is a distinction between the appellate jurisdiction and the revisional jurisdiction. In the revisional jurisdiction the evidence cannot be re-appreciated for looking the mere invalidity of the order passed by the Court below. 10. In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1962 SC 1788 , it was held mat 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 flagrant miscarriage of justice. 11. Again in the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh AIR 1968 SC 707 , Jagannath Chaudhary and others v. Ramayan Singh and another 2002 (Suppl.) ACC 136 (SC). In Ram Briksh Singh and others v. Ambika Yadav and another 2004 (48) ACC 947 (SC), wherein it has been held that under sections 397 to 401 of the Court 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 duty of the Court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. 12. After hearing learned A.G.A. and considering the grounds taken in the criminal revision and the judgment, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. 13. In view of above, the revision lacks merit. Hence, the present criminal revision is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 14. Certified copy of this judgment be transmitted to Court below for necessary action.