HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 34 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 95 of 1997 Revisionist :- Majeed Opposite Party :- [ENTITY] And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- [ENTITY] Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,[ENTITY] Hon'ble [ENTITY],J.
1. Heard Sri [ENTITY], learned counsel for revisionist and perused the record.
2. This criminal revision under [SECTION] [ACT], has been filed aggrieved by order dated 23.05.1997 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in [CASE NUMBER], whereby Respondents were acquitted from the offence under [SECTION] [ACT].
3. It is contended that injuries were found on the persons of victim but not considered by Court below. However, I find that all the injuries have been discussed in detail with other evidence and Court below has recorded a finding of fact on the basis of appreciation of evidence that it could not be proved that alleged injuries were caused in the same incident and in the same manner as complained and, therefore, prosecution has not proved its case beyond doubt. Thus submission made before this Court is contrary to record.
4. Learned counsel for revisionist could not show any perversity in aforesaid finding of fact recorded by Court below or misreading of evidence or omission of any evidence or consideration of any irrelevant evidence. No other point has been raised.
5. Scope of 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] of [ACT], pertaining to revisional jurisdiction, the Court in [PRECEDENT] said that revisional jurisdiction under [SECTION] 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]. 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 [PRECEDENT] 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 [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; and, [PRECEDENT].
9. In [PRECEDENT] 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.
10. In [PRECEDENT] 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.
11. In [PRECEDENT] the Court said:
"The revision power under the [ACT] 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 [PRECEDENT], in a matter again arising from the judgment of acquittal, the revisional power of High Court was examined and the Court said:
"4. [SECTION] 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] 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. Moreso, if an appeal is filed against acquittal despite the fact that plenary power of Appellate Court to review the whole evidence on which order of acquittal is founded has been recognized by a Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] and it has been followed in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT], still Court has held that in the matter of acquittal there are certain other principles which are to be kept in mind.
14. In [PRECEDENT] Court said that an Appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court.
15. Further in [PRECEDENT] Court said that High Court is required to see that unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. All these authorities have been referred and followed in [PRECEDENT].
16. In the present case above principles are not only applicable in entirety but makes the jurisdiction of this Court further narrower for the reason that here the judgment of acquittal has been challenged in revision where the scope of judicial review is further limited as already discussed above and not as wide as that of Appellate Court. Therefore, unless there is a patent and culpable illegality justifying interference in judgment of acquittal, this Court shall not and should not interfere in criminal revision.
17. The revision is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated
18. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.
Order Date :- 25.09.2019 AK