Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2830 (ALL)

Chhote Khan v. State of U. P.

2019-12-19

MANISH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Manish Kumar, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the revisionist Shri Jagdev Singh is present but no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties despite the fact that notice has been personally served upon the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. 2. After hearing Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and having gone thorough the lower Court's record and the judgment dated 4.12.1998 passed by Additional Session Judge, Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 732/96 (State v. Ram Pal Singh and another) acquitting the accused persons from the charge under section 302/201 of I.P.C. 3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contented that Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence. He tried to take this Court to the judgment of Court below and made his endeavour to show that the view taken by Court below in appreciating evidence is not correct. 4. 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 jurisdiction has to be maintained. 5. 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 mis-appreciated the evidence on record. 6. The law has been settled in catena of decisions wherein the dispute 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 validity or legality of the order passed by the Court below. 7. In K. Chinnaswammy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1978, 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. 7. In K. Chinnaswammy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1978, 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 v. Sarju Singh AIR 1968 SC 707 , Khetrabasi Samal v. State of Orissa AIR 1970 SC 272 , Satyendra Nath Dutta and another v. Ram Narain 1975 (12) ACC 265 (SC), Jagannath Choudhary and others v. Ramayan Singh and another 2002 (Suppl.) ACC 136 (SC), and Johar and others v. Mandal Prasad and another 2008 (61) ACC 363 (SC). 9. In Duli Chand v. 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 Pathuma and another v. Muhammad 1986 (23) ACC 286 (SC), 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 v. State of Rajasthan and another 2002 (44) ACC 137 (SC), the Court said: "The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and causal 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. 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 no constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged." 12. In Ram Briksh Singh and others v. Ambika Yadav and another 2004 (48) ACC 947 (SC), in a matter again arising from the judgment of acquittal, the revisional power of High Court was examined and the Court said: "Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are ground 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. In absence of anything to show as to what evidence has not been examined or the finding of fact recorded by Court below is perverse or contrary to material on record, no interference is called for. 14. In view of above, revision lacks merit. Dismissed. Certify this judgment to the Lower Court immediately.