Crl. Revision No. 1607 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 94 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 21, 2011 Mohinder Pal ...... Petitioner Versus Raghbir Singh and others ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) Mohinder Pal-petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.7.2009 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 427,447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that 29.9.2006 the accused alongwith some other persons entered the shop of Mohinder Pal complainant and threw away the goods lying there outside the shop and also broke the same and also threatened the complainant that they will put him to death. The complainant lodged FIR at the police station Ex.P3 and the police investigated the case and after the completion of the Crl. Revision No. 1607 of 2010 (O&M) 2 investigation, filed the challan against the accused. The accused- respondents charge sheeted accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case prosecution examined 3 witnesses and thereafter no other witness was examined despite several opportunities. The evidence of the prosecution was closed by order. Thereafter statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded wherein they denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. However, no defence evidence was led by them. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties and going through the record acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges framed against them. Not satisfied with the impugned judgment, the complainant-petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution and has erred in acquitting the accused despite the fact that there was sufficient evidence on the record to convict them and as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. As per the case of the prosecution, on 29.9.2006 the accused- respondents alongwith other persons entered the shop of the petitioner and threw away the goods lying there outside the shop and also threatened the complainant with dire consequences. The prosecution has examined three witnesses out of which ASI Jaswinder Singh has not been cross examined and as such his statement cannot be read in evidence. Though the petitioner has deposed against the respondent, yet his statement is not corroborated by any other independent witness. Moreover, the incident had taken place in Crl. Revision No. 1607 of 2010 (O&M) 3 the main market and as such there must be some persons present at the spot when the alleged incident had taken place, but surprisingly the prosecution has not joined any witness from the locality or examined any witness to corroborate the bald statement of the petitioner complainant. It is a case of the petitioner that he had taken the shop in question on rent but he has failed to produce the original of the rent receipts. A perusal of the record shows that charge was framed against the accused respondents on 17.7.2007 and thereafter the prosecution examined only three witnesses despite the fact that more than 16 effective opportunities were afforded to the prosecution to lead the evidence and ultimately the trial Court has closed the evidence of the prosecution by order. As the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused-respondents. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Akalu Ahir reported in 1973(3) SCC 583 in para 8 has observed as under: - “...........the revision from an order of acquittal, should appropriately refrain from interfering except when there is a glaring legal defect of a serious nature which has resulted in grave failure of justice. .............It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court in the court of trial, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of acquittal and direct the retrial of the acquittal accused persons. From the very nature of this power, it should be exercised in exceptional cases and with great care and caution. Trials are not to be lightly set aside when such order expose the accused persons to a fresh trial with all its consequential harassment. This matter is not res integra and had indeed been dealt with by this court at least in the four cases noticed by the High Court. ...............It makes all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering re-trial. No doubt, in Crl. Revision No. 1607 of 2010 (O&M) 4 the opinion of this court no criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies for attracting the High Court's power of ordering retrial can be laid down. This Court, however, by way of illustration, indicated the following categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. i. Where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the accused; ii. Where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wishes to produce; iii. Where the appellate court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the Trial Court to the inadmissible; iv. Where the material evidence has been overlooked only (either) by the trial court or by the appellate court; and v. Where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law.” These categories were, however, merely illustrative and it was clarified that other cases of similar nature can also be properly held to be of exceptional nature where the High Court can justifiably interfere with the order of acquittal.” Hon'ble Apex Court, in the matter of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2002(6) SCC 560 in paras 13 and 14 has observed as under: - “13. The instant case is not one where any such illegality was committed by the trial court. In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. 14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the informant. It may be that the High Court on appreciation of the evidence on record may Crl. Revision No. 1607 of 2010 (O&M) 5 reach a conclusion different from that of the trial court. But that by itself is no justification for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment of acquittal. We cannot say that the judgment of the trial Court in the instant case was perverse. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself. At best the High Court thought that the prosecution witnesses were reliable while the trial court took the opposite view. This Court has repeatedly observed that in exercise of revisional jurisdictional against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party, the Court exercises only limited jurisdiction and should not constitute itself into an appellate court which has a much wider jurisdiction to go into questions of facts and law, and to convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction.” Hon'ble Apex Court, in the matter of Johar Vs. Mangal Prasad reported in 2008(3) SCC 423 in para 19 has held as under: - “19. The approach of the High Court to the entire case cannot be appreciated. The High Court should have kept in mind that while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it exercises a limited power. Its jurisdiction to entertain a revision application, although is not barred, but severally (sic severely) restricted, particularly when it arises from a judgment of acquittal. ” Now, this is a settled position of law that power of this Court in a revision against the judgment of acquittal is limited. This Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction ordinarily will not re-assess the evidence. Even if two views are possible on the re-assessment of the evidence, this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction ordinarily shall not disturb the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court. In the opinion of this Court, learned Trial Court has not left or overlooked any important evidence which could prove the guilt of the Crl. Revision No. 1607 of 2010 (O&M) 6 accused. In the opinion of this Court, Trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional or procedural error which would have vitiated the trial. No interference is called for. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge March 21, 2011 Anand