IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 736 of 2001 Old No. Criminal Revision no. 781 of 1991 Smt. Geeta. …..….Revisionist. Versus State of U.P. and others. …….. ….Respondents. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. This revision under section 397, 401 of Code of Criminal of Procedure is filed challenging the order dated 28.02.1991 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate in criminal case no. 639 of 1986 (State Vs. Dr. Madan Arora and others), P.S. – Kotwali, Dehradun, thereby acquitting the accused /respondents no. 2 to 5 under section 406, 498A, 420 IPC and 4/6 Dowry Prohibition Act. None is present on behalf of the revisionist. Present revision is of year 1991, so I proceed to decide it in absence of the revisionist. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Akalu Ahir reported in 1973 (3) SCC page 583 has observed in para 8 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. 2 ……………….. 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 acquitted 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 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 wished to produce; iii. Where the appellate court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the Trial Court to the inadmissible; 3 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.” From perusal of above judgment, it is clear that this court while exercising revisional power cannot sit over the judgment passed by courts below and cannot re- appreciate the evidence. This court can interfere with judgment passed by the court below only when this court find any important evidence escaped from the notice of the court below which could through light on the issue involved or lower court has illegally shut down the evidence of parties or lower court committed such illegality or procedural irregularity which could vitiates the proceedings. Brief facts of the case are respondents accused were charged under section 498A, 406 IPC and 4/6 of Dowry Prohibition Act while accused Dr. Madan Arora was charged under section 420 IPC also besides charges under sections 498A, 406 IPC read with 4/6 Dowry Prohibition Act. From the prosecution side PW 1 – Dr. Geeta Arora, PW 2 – Sri Harish Kapoor, PW 3- Inder Prakash, PW 4 – Sri Charan Das, PW 5 – Sri Munni Lal Trehan, PW 6- 4 Tilak Raj Gupta, PW 7 – Iswari Dutt Joshi, PW 8 - Sri Ramesh Gupta were examined. From the side defence, DW 1 – Sri Hardayal Mehta, DW 2 – B.S. Rana, DW 3 – Surendra Kalia, DW 4 – Devendra Singh Aswal, DW 5 – Dr. Madan Arora were examined. Learned Trial Court after discussing the entire evidence and material available, recorded reasoned finding of fact no case is made out against the accused under sections 406, 498A IPC and section 4/6 Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Trial Court found that charges under section 420 IPC is also not proved against the accused Dr. Madan Arora. I have carefully perused the record and judgment passed by the Trial Court. I find no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error from the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. From the perusal of the record, I do not find that Trial Court over shut down the evidence or Trial did not take into account any material available on record. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Revision is dismissed. (Alok Singh, J.) 10.12.2009 SKS