# Munuwa Revisionist v. Parshuram & Ors - **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 819 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2019-12-19 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision Defective No. 27 of 2000 - **Bench:** Manish Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/munuwa-revisionist-v-parshuram-ors-45316 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,1973-Sections-397/401 & Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections323.325,504-acquittal of accused after appreciation of evidence by trial court-revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to only correct wrong appreciation of evidence-it is exercised in exceptional cases when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on a point of law resulting flagrant miscarriage of justice-no illegality in the impugned order-hence, dismissed. (Para 13) Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6) List of Cases Cited: ## Text 2 All. Munuwa Vs. Parshuram & Ors. 819 106. Criminal law is designed as a mechanism for achieving social control and its purpose is to regulate and control the activities within the society. Criminal justice system has a larger objective to achieve, i.e. safety and protection of the people at large and it would be a lesson not only to the offender, but to the individual at large so that such crime would not be committed by anyone. Taking a lenient view of a serious offence will leave a wrong impression about the criminal justice system and will encourage further criminal acts, which will endanger the peaceful co-existence and welfare of the society. In the instant case, the accused appellant has brutally assassinated his father initially by firing a shot and thereafter hacking him to death. The accused-appellant is also involved in the commission of murder of his step mother Vimla for which trial is pending in the court below. This is a case of patricide where the accused-appellant has not only committed the murder of an innocent old and feeble person, but also slurred the relation of father and son. 107. In view of what has been indicated herein above, we are of the view that the impugned judgement and order dated 17.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track ) Court No. 3, Maharajganj does not call for any interference by this Court. 108. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 109. The appellant Jawahar alias Babu Ram is in jail. He shall remain in jail to serve out the sentence as awarded to him by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by us. 110. Office is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Court below for information and compliance. ---------- (2020)02ILR A819 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. Criminal Revision Defective No. 27 of 2000 Munuwa ...Revisionist Versus Parshuram & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri Sri N.K. Saxena, Sri Ashutosh Pandey, Sri Ram Kishore Gupta, Arti Saxena Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A., Sri A.R.B. Kher, Sri Rajaram Kushwaha A. Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,1973-Sections-397/401 & Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections323.325,504-acquittal of accused after appreciation of evidence by trial court-revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to only correct wrong appreciation of evidence-it is exercised in exceptional cases when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on a point of law resulting flagrant miscarriage of justice-no illegality in the impugned order-hence, dismissed. (Para 13) Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6) List of Cases Cited: 1. K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. St.of A.P.,AIR (1962) SC 1788 820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 2. Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh, AIR (1968) SC 707 3. Jagannath Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. Ramayan Singh & Anr.,(2002) 5 SCC 659 4. Ram Briksh Singh & Ors Vs. Ambika Yadav & Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 665 (Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.) 1. Case has been called in the revised list. No one is present on behalf of any of the parties. Learned A.G.A. is present. 2. Office has reported some defect but not exactly what is the defect in the revision. 3. From the perusal of records, there is delay of few days in filing of the revision. 4. The dealy in filing of present criminal revision is condoned. 5. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.10.1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba in Case No.2456 of 1997 acquitting the opposite party nos.1, 2 & 3 of the offence under Sections 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C. The prosecution case is that at 5:00 p.m. in the evening of 22.1.1993, the complainant Munuwa was in his field alongwith his wife, sons and daughters, the accused Parasuram, Juguva and Kishori armed with lathis started quarrelling with him and started beating with lathis. Against the said incident, an F.I.R. was lodged and Crime Case No.2456 of 1997, under Section 323, 325 and 504 of I.P.C. was registered. 6. In the said case, the judgment and order has been passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 6.10.1999 acquitting all the accused persons against which the present criminal revision has been preferred. 7. Learned A.G.A. has argued that the judgment has been passed after appreciation of evidence available on the record and that no such incident has occurred as alleged by the complainant. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned A.G.A. and perused the judgment passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate which is impugned in the present criminal revision as well as examined the grounds taken in the present criminal revision. 9. The 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 made different provisions for appeal and revision and the distinction of two jurisdiction has to be maintained. 10. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of 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. 11. The law has been settled in catena of decisions wherein it has been held that there is a distinction between the appellate jurisdiction and the revisional 2 All. Hari Shankar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 821 jurisdiction. In the revisional jurisdiction the evidence cannot be re-appreciated for looking the the mere invalidity of the order passed by the Court below. 12. In K.Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788 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 flagrant miscarriage of justice. 13. Again in the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707, Jagannath Chaudhary and others Vs. Ramayan Singh and another, 2002(5) SCC 659. In Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another 2004(7) SCC 665 wherein it has been held that under Sections 397 to 401 of the Court 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 401 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 duty of the Court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. 14. After hearing learned A.G.A. and considering the grounds taken in the criminal revision and the judgment, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. 15. In view of above, the revision lacks merit. 16. Hence, the present criminal revision is dismissed. 17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 18. Certified copy of this judgment be transmitted to court below for necessary action. ---------- (2020)02ILR A821 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2020 Harish Shankar ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri Priyanshu Kumar Srivastava Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. A. Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,1973-Section 156(3)- rejection-calling the report or collecting the evidence from the police station concerned, if the Magistrate is satisfied that no prima facie case is made out, he is not bound to order for registration of the case-He may or may not allow the application in his discretionHence,dismissed.(Para 7 to 18) It is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the case, he can exercise judicial discretion in the matter and can pass order for treating it as complaint or to reject it in suitable cases.(Para 7)