Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2047 of 2002 Revisionist :- Satendra Opposite Party :- Purendra Counsel for Revisionist :- S.D. Kautilya Counsel for Opposite Party :- AGA
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
None is present on behalf of revisionist or opposite party even in the revised call. Perused the record.
This criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 19.10.2002 passed by VIth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1997, Police Station Dadri, District Ghaziabad acquitting accused opposite party Pushpendra under Section 307 IPC Sri P.K. Rai, learned Brief Holder submits that no Government Appeal has been filed against the order challenged in this revision.
From perusal of record, it transpires that FIR was lodged on 22.9.1995 at 10 A.M. after three days with due consultation and thought. The incident is of 19.9.1995. Injuries shown in the injury report was found false and no injury was caused by accused Pushpendra. In these circumstances, it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that such type of incident had taken place at the date, time and place or injury was caused by opposite party Pushpendra.
The Apex Court in the case of State Farm Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Nijjer Agro Foods Ltd., (2005) 12 SCC 502, State of Maharashtra Vs. Jag Mohan Singh Kuldip Singh, 2004 (50) ACC 889 (SC) and Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 107, has held that while the appellate jurisdiction is co-extensive with the original court's jurisdiction as a appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence is concerned, the revisional court has simply to confine to the legality and propriety of the findings and as to whether the subordinate court acted within it's jurisdiction. A revisional court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate and impose and substitute it's own findings. Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. confer only limited power on revisional court to the extent of satisfying the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like appellate court for other purposes including the recording of new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence.
This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment & order. The present revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018/P.P.