Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2004 of 2002
Revisionist :- Ramjan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- J.P.N. Raj
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Case has been called out in the revised list. Neither any request has been made nor any one on behalf of revisionist is present. Learned A.G.A. is present.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.9.2002 passed by Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Jhansi in Special Trial No.66 of 2001 recording the order passed illegality directing the case property recovered from the possession of the applicant in cash of Rs.33000/- be vested on the State.
The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist who was working as a cashier in the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam), Jhansi was left the office for depositing the government money of Rs.1,55,000/- in the Central Bank at around 11:30 a.m. when he reached in the way, he was looted by two persons whose age was around 20-25 years and against that loot, an F.I.R. has been lodged.
The present revision has been preferred by the revisionist only for the limited purposes of finding given by the court below that Rs.30,000/- recovered from the revisionist be deposited in the government treasury.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently argued that the money which has been directed by the order dated 23.9.2002 to be deposited in the government treasury by the revisionist is after the appreciation of the evidence and material on record and there is no illegality in the order/judgment of the court below.
From the perusal of the judgment, I have found that recovery of Rs.30,000/- from the revisionist is on the basis of the pointing out of the P.W.-3 Aditya Kumar and at the time of recovery, the revisionist was carrying 1315 bore double barrel illegal arm alongwith Rs.30,000/-, on the notes recovered, there was a stamp of MPSRTC.
In the revision, the revisionist has neither disputed the finding of the evidence in the judgment impugned in the present criminal revision nor disputed the same.
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.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