Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


R.K.Singh v. State - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 667 of 1988 [2006] RD-AH 14385 (25 August 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Criminal Revision No. 667 of 1988

Raj Kumar Singh Chandel and others . . .  . . .  . . . .  . Revisionists.


State of U.P. and another. . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .  . . . .Opp. Parties.


Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 8.4.1988 passed by Sri P.P. Gupta, then learned  Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Revision no. 58 of 1988,  Resham Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others.

The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that Smt. Resham Devi had filed a complaint case, i.e. Complaint Case  no. 211 of 1987,  against the revisionists under sections 395, 427, 147, 504, 506, 323 and 324 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate  after taking evidence under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was of  the view that no case against the accused  is made out. He, therefore, rejected the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved with that order the complainant filed  Criminal Revision no. 58 of 1988before Sessions Court. This revision was heard and decided by Sri P.P. Gupta, then learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh. He was of the view that  the conclusion of the Magistrate was erroneous. He, therefore, allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and issued a direction to the Magistrate to  summon the accused persons under sections 395, 427, 147, 504, 506, 323 and 324 I.P.C. Aggrieved with that order the accused filed  this revision before this Court.

None appeared for the revisionists at the time of hearing of the revision even after revision of the cause list. The learned A.G.A. was present for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant O.P. no.2  was also present. I, therefore, heard both of them and perused the record.

It is to be seen that the revisional court has got no jurisdiction to record its own findings of fact on the basis of  evidence. It can go through the evidence  to find out whether the findings are based on evidence or not; and if the findings are perverse, it has got jurisdiction to set aside those findings. But it cannot substitute its own findings in place of the findings of fact recorded by the court below. In the present case the learned  Sessions Judge not only set aside the findings of fact  recorded by the Magistrate, but after substituting his own findings issued a direction to the Magistrate to summon all the accused   under different sections of the Indian Penal Code mentioned in his order. This approach was erroneous and the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to issue any such direction to the Magistrate. If he was of the view that the order passed by the Magistrate was erroneous and not based on the evidence, he could set aside those findings of the Magistrate but thereafter he should have remanded the matter to the Magistrate issuing directions to  him, to reconsider  the matter in the light of  the observations made by him in the body of the judgment and then to pass a suitable order in the matter. The positive findings  on the points whether there was sufficient evidence against the accused for summoning them or not  and for what offences they were to be summoned were to be recorded  by the Magistrate and not by the Sessions Judge.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant-O.P. no.2 that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge was  fully justified and he had rightly directed the Magistrate on the basis of the evidence to summon  the accused persons. I do not agree with this contention. The Sessions Judge had rightly set aside the order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint but the direction issued by him to the Magistrate to summon the accused was beyond his jurisdiction. He could simply direct the Magistrate to rehear the matter and then pass a fresh order after considering  the evidence  and the  observations made by him in the body of the judgment.

The revision is, therefore, partly allowed. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge setting aside the order of the Magistrate  regarding dismissal of the complaint is maintained, but the latter portion of his order  whereby he had directed the Magistrate to summon the accused persons is set aside and that is substituted by this order that  the Magistrate shall after receipt of the record rehear the complainant and pass fresh suitable orders in the matter taking into consideration  the evidence in the light of the  observations made by the learned Sessions Judge.



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


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 |

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