GANESHA versus SHARANAPPA & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 19-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2013] 12 S.C R. 400 
GANESHA 
v. 
SHARANAPPA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1948 of 2013) 
NOVEMBER 19, 2013 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND KURIAN 
JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.401(3) rlw s.386(a) - Revisional power of High Court-
Explained - High Court converting the acquittal into 
conviction - Held: High Court while exercising the powers of 
revision can exercise all those powers which have been 
conferred on the court of appeal u/s 386 but, in view of sub-s. 
D (3) of s. 401, while exercising such power, High Court cannot 
convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction - In the 
instant case, High Court rightly c.2me to the conclusion that 
it is one of the exceptional cases as the finding of acquittal is 
on a total misreading and peNerse appreciation of evidence 
E and rightly set aside the order of acquittal, but it gravely erred 
in converting the order of acquittal into that of conviction, 
instead of directing re-hearing by trial court - Order of High 
Court set aside, but, in the circumstances of the case, re-
hearing by trial court declined - Penal Code, 1860 - s.324. 
F 
s.154 and s.2(d) rlw s.200- 'Informant' and 'complainant' 
- Distinction between - Explained. 
On the basis of a report given by the informant (PW-
2) alleging that when he made a protest as the accused 
G persons were grazing their cattle in his land and thereby 
damaging the crop the appellant assaulted him with a 
stick, an FIR was registered against the appellant and 
other accused persons. The trial court acquitted all the 
H 
400 
GANESHA v. SHARANAPPA & ANR. 
401 
A 
accused. However, in revision, the High Court set aside 
the order of acquittal of the appellant and convicted him 
u/s 324 IPC and sentenced him to six months simple 
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/-. 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the 
B 
appellant that the High Court in revision could not 
convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Sub-s. (1) of s. 401 of the Criminal C 
Procedure, 1973 makes it evident that the High Court, 
while exercising the powers of revision, can exercise any 
of the powers conferred on a court of appeal including 
the power u/s 386 of the Code. Section 386(a) authorizes 
the appellate court to reverse an order of acquittal, find 
D 
the accused guilty and pass sentence on the person 
found guilty. However, sub-s. (3) of s. 401 of the Code 
contemplates that the power of revision does not 
authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal 
into one of conviction. On the face of it, the High Court 
E 
while exercising the powers of revision can exercise all 
those powers which have been conferred on the court 
of appeal u/s 386 of the Code but, in view of sub-s. (3) of 
s. 401 of the Code, while exercising such power, cannot 
convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. [para 
F 
9] [407-A-B, E-G] 
1.2 In a case where the finding of acquittal is recorded 
on account of misreading of evidence or non-
consideration of evidence or perverse appreciation of G 
evidence, nothing prevents the High Court from setting 
aside the order of acquittal at the instance of the 
informant in revision and directing disposal on merits 
afresh by the trial court. In the event of such direction, 
the trial court shall be obliged to re-appraise the evidence 
H 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A in light of the observation of the revisional court and take 
an independent view uninfluenced by any of the 
observations of the revision al court on merits of the case. 
[para 10] [407-G-H; 408-A·B] 
8 
1.3 Interference with the order of acquittal in revision 
is called for only in cases where there is manifest error 
of law or procedure and in those exceptional cases in 
which it is found that the order of acquittal suffers from 
glaring illegality, resulting into miscarriage of justice. The 
C High Court may also interfere in those cases of acquittal 
caused by shutting out the evidence which otherwise 
ought to have been considered or where the material 
evidence which clinches the issue has bnen overlooked. 
In such an exceptional case, the High Court in revision 
can set aside an order of acquittal but it cannot convert 
D an order of acquittal into that of an orde'r of conviction. 
The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional 
cases is to order re-trial. [para 1 O] [408-B-E] 
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. State of B

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.