SANJAYSINH RAMRAO CHAVAN versus DATTATRAY GULABRAO PHALKE AND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 16-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 130 
SANJAYSINH RAMRAO CHAVAN 
v. 
DATTATRAY GULABRAO PHALKE AND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2015) 
JANUARY 16, 2015 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.397 to 401 -
C Revisional jurisdiction - Scope of - Registration of criminal 
case under Prevention of Corruption Act - Closure report by 
police uls 173(2) Cr.P. C. - Accepted by Magistrate - High 
Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside order of 
Magistrate and directed the Investigating Officer to make a 
- D request for sanction for prosecution - On appeal, held: The 
court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction not to interfere, 
unless the decision which is sought to be revised is perverse, 
untenable in law, grossly erroneous, glaringly unreasonable, 
based on no material, or in disregard of material facts or where 
E judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily and capriciously -
In the present case, order of Magistrate in accepting the 
closure report was reasoned and not perverse - The High 
Court was not justified in setting aside the order of Magistrate 
- Since no case is made out to prosecute the accused, 
F sanction for prosecution is a/so not required - Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2). 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. At the stage of taking cognizance of a 
G case what is to be seen is whether there is sufficient 
ground for taking judicial notice of an offence with a view 
to initiate further proceedings. The court is not bound by 
the report submitted by the police u/s 173(2) Cr.PC. If the 
report is that no case is made out, the Magistrate is still 
H 
130 
SANJAYSINH RAMRAO CHAVAN v. DATTATRAY 
131 
GULABRAO PHALKE 
free, nay, bound, if a case according to him is made out, 
A 
to reject the report and take cognizance. It is also open 
to him to order further investigation under Section 173(8) 
of Cr.PC. [paras 11 and 14) [146-A; 148-B-D] 
S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon 
8 
International Ltd. and others 2008 (2) SCR 36 = 2008 
(2) sec 492, Bhushan Kumar and another v. State (NCT of 
Delhi) and another 2012 (2) SCR 696 = 2012 (5) sec 424; 
Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kinjalgi and 
others 1976 (0) Suppl. SCR 123 = 1976 (3) SCC 736 - relied 
C 
on 
1.2. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is 
perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly 
unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any 
relevant material or there is palpable misreading of D 
records, the revisional court is not justified in setting 
aside the order, merely because another view is possible. 
The revisional court is not meant to act as an appellate 
court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is 
to preserve the power in the court to do justice in 
E 
accordance with the principles of criminal. jurisprudence. 
Revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 
of Cr.PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. 
Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought 
to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law 
F 
or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or 
where the decision is based on no material or where the 
material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial 
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the 
courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their G 
revisional jurisdiction. [para 14) [148-D-H] 
1.3. In the first complaint filed by the second 
respondent - the de facto complainant, there is no 
allegation for any demand for bribe by the appellant. The 
allegation of demand is specifically against accused No. 
H 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A 2. That allegation against the appellant is raised 
subsequently. The only basis for supporting the 
allegation is the conversation that is said to be recorded 
by the voice recorder. The Directorate of Forensic 
Science Laboratories has stated that the conversation is 
B not in audible condition and, hence, the same is not 
considered for spectrographic analysis. As the voice 
recorder is itself not subjected to analysis, there is no 
point in placing reliance on the translated version. 
Without source, there is no authenticity for the 
c translation. Source and authenticity are the two key 
factors for an electronic evidence. [para 16] [149-C-F] 
Anvar P. V. v. P.K. Basheer and others 2014 (10) SCALE 
660 - relied on. 
D 
1.4. Prosecution becomes a futile exercise as

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