Acquittal Finding Can't Be Converted Into One Of Conviction In Exercise Of HC's Revisional Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

The bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania further stressed that a revisional court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate and impose and substitute its own findings.

"Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. confer only limited power on the revisional court to the extent of satisfying the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like appellate court for other purposes including the recording of new findings of fact on the fresh appraisal of evidence," the Court remarked.

The bench observed thus while hearing a revision plea filed against the judgment and order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faizabad in the year 2009 wherein while hearing a criminal appeal, it acquitted a man convicted earlier under Sections 504/506(2) IPC.

Challenging that very judgment and order, the first informant moved the instant revision plea challenging the acquittal order.

At the outset, the Court noted that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner.

The Court further opined that the revisional court has to simply confine itself to the legality and propriety of the findings and as to whether the subordinate court acted within its jurisdiction.

"The High Court in its revisional powers could not have interfered with the findings of facts recorded by the lower court only because the High Court could have arrived at a different or another conclusion. Findings of acquittal recorded by the subordinate court cannot be converted into conviction by High Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 (3) Cr.P.C.," the Court further remarked.

Further, the Court observed that the view of the appellate court in the instant case was not perverse as the Court had relied upon the statement of the son of the injured- informant who had claimed that the incident in question had taken place between him and the accused and not between the informant/revisionist and the accused.

In view of this, the Court dismissed the instant revision plea.

Case title - Ambika Singh v. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 8 of 2010]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 451

Click Here To Read/Download Order