LexJAGGANATH CHOUDHARY AND ORS. versus RAMAYAN SINGH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A JAGGAN/\TH CHOUDHARY AND ORS. v. RAMA YAN SINGH AND ANR. MAY 9, 2002 B (UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.401-High Court's power of revision-Nature and object of-Revision C before High Court against order of acquiital-High Court on re-appraisal of evidence observing that trial Court wrongly discarded evidence of eye- witnesses-Thaf'reasonings for acquittal given by trial court were not proper and justifiable on the face of it-High Court directing the trial court to write a ji-esh judgment by giving proper judicial mind to the evidence on record D Held_, exercise of power uls, 401 cannot but be ascribed to be discretionwy- Thisj discretion, however, has to be a judicious exercise of discretion and not an prbitra1J1 one-Judicial discretion cannot bzit be a discretion which stands "informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and disciplined by system"- It is not to be exercised lightly but only in exceptional situations where the justice delivery system requires interference for correction of a manifest E illegality or prevention of a gross miscarriage ofjustice-lt is not an appellate forum wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible, neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible-Jn the instant case, High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the order of acquittal-Administration of justice. F G H K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., AIR (1962) SC 1788; D. Stephens v. Nosibo/la, (19511SCR284; Logendranath Jha v. Shri Polailal Biswas, ( 19511 SCR 676; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors., (1992( 4 SCC 305 and Thakur Das (Dead) by lrs. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., (t'9781 1 SCC 27, relied on. Judgment-High Court-Departureji-om regula,r norm in pronouncement ofjudgment-Effect of-Revision before High Court-Against order of acquittal passed by Additional Sessions Judge-High Court on re-appraisal of evidence observing that trial court wrongly disbelieved and discarded evidence of eye- witnesses and its judgment would affect the system of delivering justice-That 936 T .IAGGANATH CHOUDHARY v. RAMA YAN SINGH [UMESH C. BANERJEE, J.] 937 reasonings for acquittal given by trial court were not proper and justifiable A on the face of it-High Court setting aside the judgment of trial court and sending the matter back to it ''for writing a ji-esh judgment by giving proper judicial mind to evidence on record"-Held, writing a fresh judgment as directed by High Court is rather a significant departure in the normal disposal ofrevisional applications-The judgment of High Court reflects an extremely B significant departure from the nor111al forn1 qf Court orders-Perusal of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, shows that the comments of the High Court are not justified-Nor would it be said to be within the jurisdiction of High Court to pass the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction uls. 401-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.6.2001 of the Patna High Court in Cr!. R. No. 301 of 2000. S,B. Sanyal, Ranjan Mukherjee and Ms. Manita Verma for the Appellants. Braj Kishore Mishra, Ms. Aparna Jha and B.B. Singh for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered by BANERJEE, J. Leave granted c D E A significant departure from the regular norm in the matter of pronouncement of judgment is the key factor in the present appeal. Mentioned F hereinbefore a significant departure in the matter of pronouncement of judgment-but what is it so significant so as to warrant interference of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution-Before adverting to the same, however, a brief factual reference would be convenient and necessary for appreciation of such a departure-against an order of acquittal recorded by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 1992, G a revisional application stands filed before the H.igh Court of Judicature at Patna recording therein that on appreciation of evidence the order, as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, was totally perverse on the face of the judgment. It is on the basis aforesaid, the learned Single Judge in the revisional application in his judgment (impugned before this Court) in three differen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.