High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Manphool v. Vicky @ Jagpal & Ors - CRR-911-2004  RD-P&H 1969 (24 March 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of decision : 16-3-2006
Manphool Vs. Vicky @ Jagpal and others
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh
Present: None for the petitioner.
None for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Sunil Katyal, DAG, Haryana, for
Virender Singh, J.
As per office report service upon respondent No.1 is complete, whereas respondents No. 2 and 3 are served through their brother.
For all intents and purposes, the service is complete.
Since counsel for the petitioner has not turned up to assist this Court, I have myself gone through the grounds of appeal as well as the impugned judgment very minutely.
Respondents No.1 to 3 have earned acquittal in a case FIR No. 3 dated 3.1.2000, under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at police station City Jagadhri vide impugned judgement dated 11-11-2003 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri.
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.
In my considered view the impugned judgement is well reasoned one, based on proper appreciation of entire evidence on record and it does not suffer from any infirmity either on facts or law, which may call for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
Even otherwise, 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 Criminal Revision No. 911 of 2004 2
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 ground for interference.
Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.
March 16, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.