High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Prem Devi v. Bassu - CRR-388-2003  RD-P&H 1960 (24 March 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Revision No. 388 of 2003
Prem Devi Vs. Bassu
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh
Present: Mr. Pankaj Midha, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. U.K.Agnihotri, Advocate, for the respondents.
Virender Singh, J.
The petitioner herein is the complainant. She has shown her grievance against the impugned judgment of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind dated 21-9-2002, whereby all the nine respondents have earned acquittal. They were booked in a case bearing FIR No. 37 dated 27-2-1994, under Sections 406/494/498-A/120-B/114 IPC registered at police station Sadar Jind.
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.
Vide order dated 8-2-2005 notice of motion was issued to the respondents and the State. However, as per memorandum of parties, the State is not arrayed as a respondent in this case.
As per office report, five of the respondents have been served and four have refused to accept notices. All the respondents have thus been duly served.
I have heard Mr. Pankaj Midha, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing for the served respondents. With their Criminal Revision No. 388 of 2003 2
assistance I have perused the impugned judgment minutely.
The infirmities pointed out in the impugned judgment by counsel for the petitioner cannot be taken into account at all for a very simple reason that this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction against the judgment of acquittal cannot re-appreciate the evidence to that extent. He, however, has not been able to point out any infirmity in the impugned judgment with regad to facts or law.
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, 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.
Criminal Revision No. 388 of 2003 3
Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.
January 9, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.