Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1923 of 1990 Revisionist :- Karamal And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- A.C. Chaturvedi,Rajesh Kumar Singh, Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for revisionists, learned A.G.A. for State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. This criminal revision, under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by the judgments and orders dated 30.11.1990 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1989 and 26.07.1989 passed by Ist Judicial Magistrate (E.C.Act) Jhansi in Criminal Case No. 654 of 1989, convicting the appellants under Sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing them to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
3. Counsel for the revisionists, at the very outset, stated that he is not assailing judgment of the Courts below on merits, but is seeking mercy that and in view of the fact that accused-revisionists are now more than 60 years of age, sentence of imprisonment awarded to them be reduced to the period already undergone.
4. However, I find no force in the submission for the reason that minimum punishment prescribed in law has been awarded and in absence of any patent illegality, I do not find any scope of interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction for the reason that in revisional jurisdiction this Court cannot sit in appeal and re-appreciate the evidence.
5. 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 jurisdictions has to be maintained.
6. Construing old Section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, pertaining to revisional jurisdiction, Court in D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196 said that revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code ought not to be exercised lightly particularly when it is invoked by private complainant against an order of acquittal which could have been appealed against by the Government under Section 417. 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 misappreciated the evidence on record.
7. 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 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 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.).
9. In Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, 1975(4) SCC 649 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 Pathumma and another Vs. Muhammad, 1986(2) SCC 585 reiterating the above view 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 Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001(9) SCC 631 Court said:
"The revision power under the Code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual 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 entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged."
12. In Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another, 2004(7) SCC 665, in a matter again arising from the judgment of acquittal, the revisional power of High Court was examined and Court said:
"4. Sections 397 to 401 of the Code 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 the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice."
13. Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist and gone through the impugned judgments, I do not find any manifest error or otherwise illegality so as to warrant interference.
14. The revision is dismissed.
15. The accused-revisionists, Karamal and Naresh Kumar Kewal Ramani, are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall cause them to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence passed against them. The compliance shall be prepared within two months.
16. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 KA