Can HC Exercise Revisional Jurisdiction Against An Order Of Acquittal? Allahabad HC Explains [Read Judgment]
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court discussed the true contours of the jurisdiction vested in the high courts, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC and recapitulated the principles governing Revisional jurisdiction against orders of acquittal. Dismissing the revision petition that challenged the private-Respondents' acquittal, the high court said that where the...
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court discussed the true contours of the jurisdiction vested in the high courts, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC and recapitulated the principles governing Revisional jurisdiction against orders of acquittal.
Dismissing the revision petition that challenged the private-Respondents' acquittal, the high court said that where the order of the trial court did not suffer from any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction, interference was not warranted.
The single-Judge bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh reiterated that the extent and ambit of revisional jurisdiction of high courts was quite limited and had to be exercised sparingly.
"The interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked," Justice Singh reiterated the ruling in Venkatesan v. Rani & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 207.
He went over the categories of cases which would justify the high court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision, as follows:
i. Where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the accused;
ii. Where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce;
iii. Where the appellate court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible;
iv. Where the material evidence has been overlooked only (either) by the trial court or by the appellate court; and
v. Where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law
The Petitioner had accused the private-Respondent of trying to assume forcible possession over his land and of abusing and threatening to kill him.
Observing that the complainant failed to prove his case beyond doubt, Justice Singh held,
"…it cannot be said that findings and conclusion of trial court are perverse or suffers from any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction. It is one of the cardinal number of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is required to prove its case beyond doubt. In view of all these facts, there is no such illegality, perversity or any other error of jurisdiction in the impugned order so as to warrant interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction."
Pressing the limited scope of its Revisional powers, the court remarked,
"The revision jurisdiction of the High Court as contemplated under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. operates within narrow limits and can be exercised only in exceptional cases where interests of public justice require interference for the correction of gross miscarriage of justice. It cannot be exercised because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated evidence on record. The revision power of the High Court is to be exercised when there is manifest error of law or glaring defect in the procedure."
Case Details:
Case Title: Basant Narain Dubey v. State of UP & Anr.
Case No.: Crl. Rev. No. 2316/1999
Quorum: Justice Raj Beer Singh
Appearance: Advocate Dr. G.S.D. Mishra (for Petitioner)
Click Here To Download Judgment
Read Judgment