High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Darshan Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh & Anr - CRR-660-2003  RD-P&H 1965 (24 March 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Revision No. 660 of 2003
Date of decision : 31.1.2006
Darshan Singh Vs. U.T. Chandigarh and another
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh
Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Virender Singh, J.
Deepak Kohli, respondent No.2-herein has earned acquittal vide impugned judgement of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh dated 2- 11-2002. He was booked in a case FIR No. 158 dated 31.5.2000, under Sections 448/452 IPC, registered at police station West-Chandigarh.
Admittedly the Union Territory, Chandigarh has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment. A certificate to this effect issued by the office of the Legal Remembrancer Chandigarh Administration is there on the file.
I have heard Mr. Ghai, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgement minutely.
Mr. Ghai has made an attempt to point out certain infirmities in the impugned judgement mainly on appreciation of evidence, which in my considered view is beyond the scope of the revisional jurisdiction.
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.660 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 ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.
January 31, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.