# Raghvendra Singh Revisionist v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1269
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-22
- **Bench:** Vipin Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raghvendra-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44180
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 397 & 401 - Revisional jurisdiction - Scope -
Interference with acquittal - Revision filed against acquittal - Held, High Court in revisional jurisdiction
does not act as appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence - Interference permissible only in
exceptional cases involving manifest illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice - No such infirmity found in
impugned judgment.
Criminal Trial - Appreciation of evidence - Contradictions and delay in FIR - Trial court recorded
findings of material contradictions in prosecution evidence and unexplained delay in lodging FIR - Such
findings justified acquittal - No perversity or illegality warranting interference.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Revisional power - Limitation - Conversion of acquittal into
conviction - High Court cannot convert acquittal into conviction in revision - At best, in exceptional cases,
retrial may be ordered - Revisional power to be exercised sparingly.
In Result: Revision dismissed; order of acquittal upheld.

Cases cited:
State of Kerala Vs. Putthumana ILLath Jathavedan Namboodiri,AIR 1999 SC 981
State Of Karnataka vs. Appa Balu Ingale and others,AIR 1993 SC 1126
Jagannath Chaudhary Vs. Ramayan Singh,AIR 2002 SC 2229
Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and others,AIR 2002 SC 107
K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.AIR 1962 SC 1788
Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and othersJT 1998 (7) SC 98

## Text

8 All. Raghvendra Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
1269
(2016) 8 ILRA 1269
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIPIN SINHA, J.

Criminal Revision No.- 3119 Of 2003

Raghvendra Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Prabhakar Tripathi, S.P.S. Raghav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Manish Tiwari

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 397 & 401 - Revisional jurisdiction - Scope -
Interference with acquittal - Revision filed against acquittal - Held, High Court in revisional jurisdiction
does not act as appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence - Interference permissible only in
exceptional cases involving manifest illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice - No such infirmity found in
impugned judgment.
Criminal Trial - Appreciation of evidence - Contradictions and delay in FIR - Trial court recorded
findings of material contradictions in prosecution evidence and unexplained delay in lodging FIR - Such
findings justified acquittal - No perversity or illegality warranting interference.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Revisional power - Limitation - Conversion of acquittal into
conviction - High Court cannot convert acquittal into conviction in revision - At best, in exceptional cases,
retrial may be ordered - Revisional power to be exercised sparingly.
In Result: Revision dismissed; order of acquittal upheld.

Cases cited:
State of Kerala Vs. Putthumana ILLath Jathavedan Namboodiri,AIR 1999 SC 981
State Of Karnataka vs. Appa Balu Ingale and others,AIR 1993 SC 1126
Jagannath Chaudhary Vs. Ramayan Singh,AIR 2002 SC 2229
Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and others,AIR 2002 SC 107
K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr.AIR 1962 SC 1788
Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and othersJT 1998 (7) SC 98

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vipin Sinha, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned
AGA for the State.
1270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1.9.2003 passed
by Civil Judge, (S.D.) Kannauj acquitting the accused in case no. 746 of 2002; State v. Pal Singh
and others.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the court below has wrongly appreciated
the evidence and has totally ignored the eye-witness account as well as injury and the gravity of the
offense while acquitting the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 5.

4. I have perused the injure reports, perusal of which shows that there were only two
injuries on the victim, which are as follows:

^^1&dVk gqvk ?kko 5 x 1lseh0 [kky rd xgjk ck;s gkFk ds uhps okyh dykbZ ls 8 lseh0 mijA

2&nkfguh dykbZ ij nnZ dh f'kdk;r fdUrq ml ij eSus dksbZ lwtu ;k pksV dk fu'kku ugha ik;kA^^

5. It may also be appreciated at the very outset that the incident is of the year 1991 being
25.2.1991. The court below has recorded a categorical finding with regard to the incident that the
incident took place on 25.2.1991 at 6 pm in the evening and the FIR has been lodged in the
morning at about 9.30 am on 26.2.1991 whereas the distance of place of occurrence from the police
station is only about 13 km and there is no explanation with regard to the delay in the lodging of the
FIR. The court below has also recorded the discrepancy and the contradiction in the statement of
PW1 and PW2. A categorical finding has been recorded in this regard, which is as under:

^^oknh us ?kVuk LFky vius ?kj ds njokts ij gksus dk mYys[k fd;k gS tcfd lk{kh ih0MCyw&1 us vius
l'kiFk dFku esa ?kVuk LFky egsUnz ds njokts ij gksus dk dFku fd;k gSA uD'kk utjh ds vuq'kkj oknh ds edku ls egsUnz
ds edku dh nwjh cgqr vf/kd gSA ?kVuk LFky ds laca/k esa lk{kh ih0MCyq&2 us Hkh ?kVuk LFky vius njokts ds lkeus gksus
dk mYys[k fd;k gSA bl izdkj lk{kh ih0MCyw&1 o ih0MCyw&2 ds l'kiFk dFku esa fojks/kkHkkl ik;k tkrk gSA^^

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid discrepancy, the court below has recorded a finding to the
following effect:

^^;fn izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ es vafdr ?kVuk LFky rFkk lk{khx.k }kjk crk, x;s ?kVuk LFky esa fdlh
izdkj dks dksbZ fojks/kkHkkl ik;k tkrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ,d xaHkhj ekeyk gS rFkk ;g vfHk;kstu dFkkud dks
lansgkLin cukrk gSA vr% izfrj{kk i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds bl rdZ esa Hkh cy ik;k tkrk gSA^^

7. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid, the court below has concluded that there
contradictions in the statements and has noted as under :

^^lk{kh ih0MCyw&1 o 2 dk dFku gS fd vfHk;qDr us ihNs ls Qjlk ekjk Fkk tcfd lk{kh ih0MCyw&3 us
vius 'kliFk dFku dh izfr ijh{kk esa LohdkjksfDr dh gS fd lkeus ls dksbZ gfFk;kj pykus ij ;g pksaVs vk ldrh gSa D;ksafd
pksVsa ,slh fLFkfr esa gSA bl izdkj lk{kh ih0MCyw&3 ds dFkukuqlkj pksVsa lkeus ls igqpkbZ xbZ gSa] tcfd lk{kh ih0MCyw&1 o
2 ds dFkukuqlkj pksVas ihNs ls Qjlk ekjdj igqpkbZ xbZ gSaA vr% lk{khx.k ds l'kiFk dFku esa pksVsa igqpkus ds laca/k esa
fojks/kkHkkl ik;k tkrk gSA^^
8 All. Raghvendra Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
1271
8. Even with regard to the injury, the court below has recorded a categorical finding as
under :

^^tgak rd pksVksa dh vof/k ds rF; dk laca/k gS rks lk{kh ih0MCyw&3 Mk0 ,l0ch0 f}osnh us vius
l'kiFk dFku esa dgk gS fd eqvkbus ds le; pksV dk jax yky Fkk rFkk pksV 6 ls 12 ?kaVs iqjkuh Fkh tcfd fpfdRlh;
ihj{k.k ds voyksdu ls Kku gksrk gS fd et:oh dk fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k fnuakd 26&2&91 dks le; djhc ,d cts nksigj
fd;k x;k FkkA tcfd ?kVuk fnuakd 25&9&91 dks lak; 6 cts dh gS bl izdkj yxHkx 19 ?kaVs dh pksV iqjkuh gSA^^

9. In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, it will be beyond Court's power and jurisdiction
to re-assess the evidence. Appraisal of the evidence is not permissible in revision petition. Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "State of Kerala Vs. Putthumana ILLath Jathavedan Namboodiri," AIR
1999 SC 981, has held that the High Court while hearing revisions does not work as an Appellate
court and will not re-appreciate the evidence, unless some glaring feature is pointed out which may
show that injustice has been done.

10. Hon'ble the Apex Court in "State Of Karnataka vs. Appa Balu Ingale and others",
AIR 1993 SC 1126, has held that generally speaking, concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two
courts below are not to be interfered with by the High Court in absence of any special
circumstances or if same are not perverse in any manner. It should be kept in mind that Section 125
Cr.P.C. is enacted for social justice and specially to protect woman and children and also old and
infirm parents and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 14(3), re-enforced by Article 39
of the Constitution of India. The provision gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a
man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves.

11. Hon'ble the Apex Court in "Jagannath Chaudhary Vs. Ramayan Singh", AIR 2002
SC 2229, has held that revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised only in exceptional cases
where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error or point of law and
consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. In "Munna Devi Vs. State of
Rajasthan and others" AIR 2002 SC 107, it has been further held that while exercising the
revisional power the High court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the
trial and the appellate courts are required to do.

12. It may further be appreciated that the legal position as to the powers of the High Court
in revision in the matter of interference with the order of acquittal is no longer res integra, as the
law in this regard is very well settled. Suffice it to refer in this regard a decision of this Court in K.
Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anr. (AIR) 1962 Sc 1788) wherein it
was held, thus :

"It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of
acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal
by the jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exception the procedure or there
is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of
justice. Sub-section (4) of Section 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal
1272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it
does not covert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering
retrial, when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This
places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision
and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised...

13. Reference may also be had to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and others; JT 1998 (7) SC 98, wherein it has been held as
under:

"Coming to the ambit of power of High Court under Section 401 of the Code, the
High Court in its reversional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgment of acquittal passed
by the trial court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with
the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found
that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or
when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case where the trial court has
illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the
material evidence which clinches the issue have been overlooked. These are the instances where the
High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal. Sub-section (3) of Section
403 mandates that the High Court shall not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
Thus, the High Court would not be justified in substituting an order of acquittal into one of
conviction even if it is convinced that the accused deserves conviction. No doubt, the High Court in
exercise of its reversional power can set aside an order of acquittal if it comes within the ambit of
exceptional cases enumerated above, but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into an order of
conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order retrial."

14. Moreover, learned counsel for the revisionist has not been able to point out any
illegality or perversity with the finding as recorded by the court below in the order impugned.

15. Thus, in view of the aforesaid and also in view of long lapse of time, the instant
revision is dismissed.
-----------
8 All. Jagdish Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
1273
(2016) 8 ILRA 1273
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

Criminal Revision No.- 3491 Of 2014

Jagdish ...Revisionist
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Anil Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Surendra Tiwari

Cases Cited
Dashrath Rupsinh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and another, U.P. Criminal Rulings, Vol. XLV, 2014 (2), 630.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Ss. 138 and 145(2) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss.
177, 178, 179, 182 and 184 - Territorial jurisdiction - Complaint under S. 138 - Cheque
dishonoured by drawee bank situated outside territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate - Complaint
maintainable only before Court within whose territorial jurisdiction cheque was dishonoured -
Proceedings not having reached stage contemplated under S. 145(2), complaint liable to be
returned for presentation before competent Court - Complaint re-presented within thirty days of
return to be treated as within limitation, provided original complaint was not time-barred -
Revision arising from summoning order passed by ACJM. Following Dashrath Rupsinh Rathod v. State of
Maharashtra, held, the Court at Sonebhadra lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cheque had been dishonoured
by the drawee bank at Mirzapur. Since the case had not reached the stage of recording evidence under S.
145(2) of the Act, the complaint was directed to be returned to the complainant for presentation before the
competent Court, with protection regarding limitation in terms of the decision in Dashrath Rupsinh Rathod.

In Result :- Criminal revision disposed of. Interim order, if any, vacated.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Surendra Tiwari,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 23.8.2014 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonebhadra in Case No.1038 of 2014 (Anand Sagar
v. Jagdish) by which the learned Magistrate has summoned the revisionist, Jagdish under Section