Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 14 of 2000
Revisionist :- Bhawani Devi
Opposite Party :- Naresh Chandra Soni
Counsel for Revisionist :- Chndra Bhan Singh,V. Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Case called out in the revised list. No one appears on behalf of the revisionist. Learned A.G.A. is present.
As per office report, delay in filing of present criminal revision is of 104 days.
The delay in filing the revision is condoned.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 7.8.1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba acquitting the accused persons in Case Crime No.4053 of 1997 in Re State of U.P. Vs. Naresh Chand Soni and others.
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.
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.
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.
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 flagellant miscarriage of justice.
The above view was rejected in Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707, Jagannath Chaudhary and others Vs. Ramayan Singh and another, 2002(5) SCC 659. In Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another 2004(7) SCC 665 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 cross miscarriage of justice.
After hearing learned A.G.A. and perusal of grounds taken in the criminal revision and the judgment, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment.
In view of above, the revision lacks merit.
Hence, the present criminal revision stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Certified copy of this judgment be transmitted to court below for necessary action.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Anil K. Sharma