Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NAND LAL versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Nand Lal v. State of Haryana & Ors - CRR-1096-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 1942 (23 March 2006)

Criminal Revision No. 1097 of 2003 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Criminal Revision No. 1096 of 2003

Date of decision 9-1-2006

Nand Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh
Present: None for the petitioner.

Mr. Ajay Ghanghas, AAG, Haryana.

Virender Singh, J.

Sombir and Smt. Bhateri Devi respondents No.2 and 3 were charged under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 341,343,506 and 212 IPC. Both of them stand acquitted by the impugned judgment dated 8.2.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul. The instant revision petition has been filed by Nand Lal complainant.

Admittedly the State of Haryana has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment. A certificate to this effect issued by the office of the Advocate General is there on the file.

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner. On one of the dates of hearing i.e. 10-1-2005, it was made clear that if no one turns up on behalf of the petitioner, the instant petition shall stand dismissed. I could dismiss the instant petiotn for non-prosecution but I am disposing of the same on merits so that no prejudice is caused to the complainant.

The scope of revision in such type of situation is well discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias R.P.Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another, Criminal Revision No. 1097 of 2003 2

2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 61 , wherein their Lordships have observed that in the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It is further observed that the High Court should not re- appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different than the one arrived at by the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. It is further observed by their Lordships that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party, the Court exercises only limited jurisdiction and should not constitute itself into an appellate court which has a much wider jurisdiction to go into questions of facts and law and to convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. It cannot be lost sight of that when a re-trial is ordered the dice is heavily loaded against the accused, and that itself must caution the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction.

Taking into consideration the facts of the case in hand and following the raito of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh's case (supra), I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment either on facts or on merits.

Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.

[Virender Singh]

Judge

January 9, 2006

`ask'


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.