# Ashok Kumar Shukla Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 103 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-12-21 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3986 of 2023 - **Bench:** Surendra Singh-I - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-shukla-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50824 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote (A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 - Revision, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 & 120-B, Indian Evidence Act,1872 - Section 73 - Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved - Object of provision (Section 397 Cr.P.C) - Aims to correct patent defects, errors of jurisdiction, or legal perversity - Allows court to examine records of inferior courts for legality and regularity - Sub-section 2 bars revisions against interlocutory orders in appeals, inquiry trials, or other proceedings.(Para - 9) Trial Court compared Sale Deed - admitted and disputed thumb impressions - Noted dismissal of Vendor's lawsuit for sale deed cancellation - Discussed evidence to find out if sale deed was executed through impersonation and forged thumb impression - Disputed and admitted left thumb impression were identical in the Sub Registrar office's - comparison of admitted right thumb impression with disputed right thumb impression not possible. (Para - 10,11) HELD: -Limited scope for examining patent illegality and irregularity in impugned orders. 104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Revisional court may intervene if order is passed without jurisdiction. Limited scope for detailed examination of facts or evidence in trial or appellate courts. No illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as appellate court. (Para- 10,12) Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: ## Text 1 All. Ashok Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 103 to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in F.I.R. but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, the Court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and even those persons named in the F.I.R. but not implicated in charge-sheet can be summoned to face the trial provided during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused. 12. From the above rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be concluded that the trial court can summon persons who have been charge-sheeted as accused on the basis of examination-in-chief of a witness. It is not necessary that the witness should be cross-examined before such person can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The evidence required for summoning such persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is more than prima facie case but it is short of such evidence which if not rebutted will result in conviction of the persons summoned for trial. 13. Considering the law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the trial court. 14. There is no merit in the criminal revision. It is liable to be dismissed. 15. The criminal revision is dismissed, accordingly. 16. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary action. ---------- (2024) 1 ILRA 103 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.12.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J. Criminal Revision No. 3986 of 2023 Ashok Kumar Shukla ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri Ulajhan Singh Bind, Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, Sri Shivam Kumar Shukla Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A., Sri Ashish Bajpayee (A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 - Revision, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 & 120-B, Indian Evidence Act,1872 - Section 73 - Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved - Object of provision (Section 397 Cr.P.C) - Aims to correct patent defects, errors of jurisdiction, or legal perversity - Allows court to examine records of inferior courts for legality and regularity - Sub-section 2 bars revisions against interlocutory orders in appeals, inquiry trials, or other proceedings.(Para - 9) Trial Court compared Sale Deed - admitted and disputed thumb impressions - Noted dismissal of Vendor's lawsuit for sale deed cancellation - Discussed evidence to find out if sale deed was executed through impersonation and forged thumb impression - Disputed and admitted left thumb impression were identical in the Sub Registrar office's - comparison of admitted right thumb impression with disputed right thumb impression not possible. (Para - 10,11) HELD: -Limited scope for examining patent illegality and irregularity in impugned orders. 104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Revisional court may intervene if order is passed without jurisdiction. Limited scope for detailed examination of facts or evidence in trial or appellate courts. No illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as appellate court. (Para- 10,12) Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: 1. Usha Chakraborty & anr. Vs St. of W.B. & anr. , 2023 0 AIR (SC) 688 2. Raj. Vs Fateh Karan Mehdu , AIR 2017(SC) 688 (Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I, J.) 1. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.8.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Tract Court No.2, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2019 (Har Prakash Shukla and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as impugned order dated 29.1.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Etawah in Criminal Case No. 1952 of 1998, arising out of Case Crime No. 191 of 1985 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 & 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Vidhoona, District Etawah. 2. The facts in brief is that the informant Lalman S/o Ram Charan r/o Jagipur,Mauza Devrau, Police Station- Vidhuna, District- Etawah aged about 7075 years lodged a First Information Report on 2.11.1985 that he is neither married nor has any other successor. He is the land holder in possession of Khata Khatuni No. 634-A comprising three plots of land having area of one acre and 1/2 portion of land of Khata Khatuni no. nil comprising two plots having area of 4.01 acres. His relatives accused Krishna Dutt, Prabhudayal and Vinod Kumar and others used to pressurize him to execute the sale deed of his land in their favour. Thereafter, they threatened the informant that if he did not execute a sale deed they will kill him and will get the sale deed executed by impersonating any other person in his place as Vendor, due to threat of aforesaid accused and their companion ante-social elements, the informant got frightened and started living with his nephew (Bhanja) Sri Narayan at Hisawa, Police Station- Mangalpur, District- Kanpur Dehat. 3. On 3.10.201985, the informant without any pressure and free will executed two sale deeds of the aforesaid plots for Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lacs) and 39,000/- respectively in favour of Hari Prakash and Ved Prakash s/o Vijay Bahadur Shukla and a house for Rs. 8000/- in favour of Ramswaroop Shukla s/o Dularelal. 4. On 29.10.1988, the informant was informed that the accused Krishna Dutt told that on 27.7.1985, the informant had already executed a sale deed of his entire property in favour of his brother Prabhu Dayal and his nephew (Bhatija) Vinod Kumar. When the informant made an inquiry in Tehsil-Vidhuna, it was found that accused Krishna Dutt with the help of coaccused Ram Singh, deed writer and clerk Amar Singh, Sarwanam Singh and Vijendra Pratap Singh in conspiracy with his brother Prabhu Dayal and nephew Vinod Kumar by impersonating him by some other person as Vendor presented a forged sale deed in the Registrar office on 27.7.1985 which was registered on 29.9.1985. The accused Brijendra Pratap Singh and Sarnath Singh are the attesting witnesses of the said sale deed. 1 All. Ashok Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 105 5. On the basis of written report a FIR Case Crime No. 191 of 1985, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 & 120-B I.P.C was registered in Police Station Vidhoona, the then District Etawah now District- Auraiya. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons namely Krishna Dutta, Prabhu Dayal, Vinod Kumar, Brijendra Pratap Singh @ Lalli Singh, Sarnam Singh @ Rajpal Singh, Amar Singh and Ram Singh. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court no.2, Etawah tried the accused in charge framed under the aforesaid sections. The accused were acquitted by the trial court vide order dated 29.1.2019. 6. Against the acquittal order dated 29.1.2019, Ashok Kumar Shukla who is the purchaser of the portion of land from the informant filed an appeal in the Court of Session which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 25.8.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Tract Court No.2, Etawah. 7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial court without considering the evidence on record has illegally acquitted the accused on the ground that the original suit filed by the informant against accused for cancellation of sale-deed was dismissed by the civil court and that the decision of the civil court was binding on the criminal court. It has been further submitted that the trial court has not considered the expert opinion regarding finger print of the vendor on the ground that the expert has not given any reason in favour of his finding in report and he wrongly acquitted the accused. It has been further submitted that the appellate court also without considering the evidence on record has illegally dismissed the appeal filed against the acquittal order. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 5 submitted that the trial court has discussed the expert report in detail as well as evidence of expert witness, P.W.-3 Rajendra Kumar Tiwari but since the expert opinion is not supported with reasons given by him it was disbelieved. It has been further submitted that the trial court itself examined the thumb impression of Vendor Lalman on the sale deed under the provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. The accused persons have rightly been acquitted from the charges levelled against them. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Usha Chakraborty and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, 2023 0 AIR (SC)688; the provisions regarding jurisdiction of the High Courts and Sessions Courts regarding criminal revision is given in Section 397 Cr.P.C. which is as below:- "397. Calling for records to exercise of power of revision - (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record." 9. The Hon'ble Apex court has held in State of Rajasthan Vs. Fateh Karan Mehdu reported in AIR 2017(SC) 688, 106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding. The section vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. Sub-section 2 of this Section bars the revisions against any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry trial or other proceedings. 10. Thus, the scope of criminal appeal is limited and patent illegality irregularity in the impugned order, the revisional court shall also intervene if the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction. There is not much scope for detail examine the facts of the or the evidence adduced in the trial court or the appellate court. 11. The trial court has discussed the report of the finger print expert as Exhibit Ka- (5) along with the evidence of P.W. Rajendra Kumar Tiwari who has proved expert report as well as the then Sub Registrar P.W.-4 Ram Dayal at page no. 11 of paragraph no.11(2) and last paragraph page no. 14. It has been also observed by the trial court in its judgment that the finger print expert in his report Exhibit Ka-5 which is merely two pages has not discussed Ridges Characteristics, bifurcation, Ridges Ending, Enclosures, Island, Ridges Counting, Ridges tracing and Diverting Ridges of thumb impression of the Lalman Vendor Diverting Riges of the admitted and disputed thumb impression of the Vendor Lalman without discussing this similarity between these features admitted and disputed thumb impression, no allegation could be drawn that the disputed thumb impression is not that of Vendor Lalman. The trial court has mentioned in its judgment that after considering the aforesaid features of the disputed and admitted left thumb impression it was found that they were identical in the Registered No. 8 maintained in the Sub Registrar office, no thumb impression was given on the sale deed only right thumb impression of the Vendor has been affixed, therefore, comparison of admitted right thumb impression with the disputed right thumb impression was not possible. The trial court had made comparison between the silent features admitted and disputed thumb impression by himself observing them under the magnifying glass. The trial court has also mentioned in its judgment that a suit filed by the Vendor for cancellation of sale deed was dismissed by the civil court and this fact was also by the trial in consideration. Similarly the trial court has discussed the evidence on record to find out whether the sale deed was executed by impersonating and forged thumb impression thereon. 12. Considering the the impugned orders of the trial court as well as appellate court in light of the statutory provisions regarding criminal revision as well as argument of learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as appellate court. 13. There is no merit in the criminal revision, it is liable to be dismissed. 14. The present criminal revision is dismissed accordingly. 15. Copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for necessary compliance. ---------- 1 All. Mohd. Akib Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 107 (2024) 1 ILRA 107 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.12.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. Criminal Revision No. 5359 of 2022 Mohd. Akib ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri S.S. Rajput Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A., Ms. Aishwarya Saxena, Sri Ajit Kumar, Sri Ram Behari Saxena (A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 - Revision, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 326-A - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc. - entire purpose of criminal trial is to go to the truth of the matter - Once there is satisfaction of the Court that there is evidence before it that an accused has committed an offence, the court can proceed against such a person - At the stage of summoning an accused there has to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court. (Para -18,) (B) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - scope and ambit - 'doctrine judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted) - this doctrine must be used as a beacon light while explaining the ambit and the spirit underlying the enactment of Section 319 Cr.P.C.- It is the duty of the court to do justice by punishing the real culprit - Where the inestigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial. (Para - 18,19,20) Accused named in FIR - name was dropped during investigation - only co-accused was charge sheeted under Section 326A IPC - Court below not taken note of fact - respondent No. 2 named in FIR and primarily responsible for throwing acid on PW-2 (injured) - completely lost an eye - PW-1 (eye witness) and PW-2 (injured witness) testimony indicates respondent's complicity - application moved by revisionist/informant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - rejected - hence revision. (Para - 2,16,17) HELD: -Trial Court directed to reconsider matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in the light of observations made Hon'ble Apex Court's judgments (Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punj. & ors). (Para -21) Revision disposed of. (E-7) List of Cases cited: 1. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punj. & ors. , (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, J.) 1. Heard Sri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and Sri Ram Behari Saxena, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 7, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 2689 of 2021 (State vs. Mumshad alias Banti) arising out of Case Crime No. 345 of 2021, under Section 326A IPC, Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh whereby application moved by the revisionist/informant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.