Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 578 of 2002 Revisionist :- Kapil Kumar Garg Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Satish Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Learned counsel for the revisionist Shri Satish Kumar Tyagi is present, learned A.G.A. is present on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 After hearing counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and having gone thorough the lower Court's record and the judgement dated 29.01.2002 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2001 (Sunil Chandra Agarwal Vs. State) acquitting the Opposite Party No.2 from the charge under Section 324 of I.P.C and for restoration of the order dated 13.04.2001 passed by the IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in Case No.645 of 1998 (State Vs. Sunil & Ohters).
Learned counsel for the revisionist contented that Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence. He tried to take this Court to the judgement of Court below and made his endeavour to show that the view taken by Court below in appreciating evidence is not correct.
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 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 validity or legality of the order passed by the Court below.
In K. Chinnaswammy Reddy Vs. 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.
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.) 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.
In Pathuma 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.
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 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. 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 entirely do no constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged."
In Ram Briksh Singh and other Vs. Ambika Yadav and another, 2004(7) SCC 665, in a matter again arising from the judgement 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."
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.
In view of above, revision lacks merit. Dismissed. Certify this judgement to the lower Court immediately.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Zafar