STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SUJAY MANGESH POYAREKAR

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 750 · Decided: 19-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 750 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
SUJAY MANGESH POYAREKAR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1492 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 
[C.K THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S.378(3): 
Leave to appeal against order of acquittal - Grant of -
C Held: In deciding about grant of leave to appeal, appellate 
Court must apply its mind and consider as to whether prima 
facie case has been made out and arguable points have been 
raised against the acquittal of the accused or not - However, 
the Court need not to enter into minute details of prosecution 
D evidence - If arguable points have been raised and material 
on record discloses deeper scrutiny and re-appreciation, re-
view or re-consideration of evidence, the appellate Court must 
grant leave and decide it on merits - In the instant case, High 
Court erred in rejecting the application for grant of leave with-
E out recording reasons on the ground that the judgment of the 
trial Court could not be termed as perverse - Hence, order of 
the High Court cannot be sustained and set aside - Matter 
remitted to the High Court for disposal afresh. 
Power of appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal 
F - Ambit and Scope of - Discussed. 
Revisional Jurisdiction - Exercise of - Held: Powers of 
Revisional Court are limited - Rejection of revision petition 
not disentitling the party to invoke statutory remedy available 
G u/s.378 of the Code. 
H 
Right to appeal - Scope of - Discussed. 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, 
when the complainant, an advocate by profession, was 
750 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SUJAY 
751 
MANGESH POYAREKAR 
talking to the wife of the accused in the Railway Station, A 
accused came there and started abusing him in filthy lan-
guage alleging that the complainant was teasing his wife 
and assaulted him with knife and injured him. The com-
plainant made a complaint to the Station Master. In the 
meantime, his sister and another person came there and 
B 
took him to a Government Hospital, where police recorded 
his statement and forwarded the same to the concerned 
Railway Police Station where the case was registered 
against the accused person for committing the offences 
punishable under Sections 307 and 504 IPC. After inves- c 
tigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Police in the Court 
of Judicial Magistrate and the case was committed to the 
Sessions Court. The Trial Court acquitted the accused as 
the prosecution failed to establish the case against the 
accused person. The application for grant of leave to ap-
D 
peal filed by the State was rejected by the High Court ob-
serving that the judgment of the Trial Court could not be 
said to be 'perverse'. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-State contended that the High Court has 
committed an error of law in not granting leave to the State E 
to file an appeal against the order of acquittal recorded 
by the Sessions Court; that from the material placed be-
fore the Court, it was clearly established that PW1 sus-
tained injuries which were proved froin the evidence of 
1 
PW12; that it was clearly proved from the evidence on 
F 
record that there was enmity between the parties; that the 
accused was admittedly present at the Railway Station; 
and that the High co'urt had failed to consider all these 
facts . 
. Respondent submitted that there was suppression G 
of fact by the State, as the fact of filing Revision Petition 
by the complainant and dismissal thereof had not been 
mentioned in the present proceedings; that the Trial Court 
considered the prosecution evidence in detail and came 
to the conclusion that the prosecution was unable to H 
752 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
A prove case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt 
and he was, therefore, entitled to acquittal; and that it was 
not necessary for the High Court, when it agreed with the 
order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, to record 
reasons again for such acquittal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The case in hand was instituted on the ba-
sis of First information Report. It was thus a Police case. De 
facto complainant, therefore, has no right to file an appeal. 
c He, therefore, preferred a revision. (Para -16) [760-D-E] 
D 
E 
1.2 It is well settled that revisional jurisdiction can be 
exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. A 
Revisional Court cannot convert itself into a regular Court 
of Appeal. (Para - 16) [760-D-E] 
1.3 Powers of R

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