LexSTATE OF KERALA versus PUTTUMANA ILLATH JATHAVEDAN NAMBOODIRI ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.... STATE OF KERALA A .... v . PUTTUMANA ILLATH JATHAVEDAN NAMBOODIRI ETC. FEBRUARY 11, 1999 (G.B. PATTANAIK AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] B -· • Criminal Procedure Code 1973-Section 397-Revisional jurisdic- tio11-Co11viction and sentence by Magistrate and by Sessions Judge in ap- peal-High Court setting aside conviction and sentence upon reappreciating evidence, whether exceeding its revisional jurisdiction----Held, revisio11al power c ca1111ot be equated with appellate power-U11less any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice, High Court not to reappreciate evidence and come to its_ own con- clusion-Penal Code, Sections 408, 468 and 477A. The accused-respondent was convicted and sentenced by the D Magistrate for offences under Sections 408, 468 and 477 A, IPC. This was affirmed in appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge who reappraised the entire evidence, oral and documentary. On revision being filed by the accused, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. E In appeal before this Court, it was contended for the state that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in interfering with the order of conviction and sentence by reappreciating the evidence on record; and that the High Court had in fact not considered several items of evidence. It was urged for the accused that the case being one of no F evidence, the High Court was justified in exercising its revisional jurisdic- tion. Further, in the absence of entrustment having been established, the charges under Sectfon 408 could not be held to have been established. Allowing the appeal, this Court G .-~ HELD : 1. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction by reappreciating the oral evidence. In its· revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. ID other words, the H 575 576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R. A jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court ·' for correcting miscarriage of justice. But this revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be ap- propriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its \ own conclusion when the evidence has already been appreciated by the B Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. [578-D-F] 2. The High Court also committed further error in not examining C several items of evidence relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge while confirming the conviction. [578-G] 3. The impugned judgment of the High Court is therefore wholly unsustainable in law. [578-H] D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal no. 554 of 1995 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 4.2.94 of the Kerala High Court in Crl. R.P. No. 521 of 1988. E G. Prakash for State of Kerala for the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 554/95. F U.R. Lalit, M. K. Sasidharan, T. G. Narayanan Nair for the Appel- lant in S.L.P. No. 1466/94. M.N. Rao and T.T. Kunhikannan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATTANAIK, J. The State of Kerala is in appeal against the Judg- ment dated 4.2.94 of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 521 of 1988. By the impugned Judgment, the High Court in revision, G has interfered with the conviction and sentence passed against the accused .. respondent of the offences under Sections 408, 468 and 477 A of the Indian ',• _ Penal Code. The accused-respondent was an employee of Western India H Plywoods and was head of the purchase section. In course of his duties, he .. STATEv. P.IJ. NAMBOODIRI [PATTANAIK,J.] 577 " was supposed to send empty barrels to the suppliers for getting the A - chemical Formal-dehyde. <The prosecution alleged that in the process of sending such empty barrels to the suppliers for the purpose of getting refilled Formal-dehyde between the period 10.10.74 to 25.6.75, the accused- respondent manipulated the official records and documents and sold 660
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.