Smt. Sugra vs Zahid and Others

M.C. Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G. A.

The revision is sought to be preferred by the revisionist (complainant) against the judgment and order dated 25.1.2001 passed by 3rd Additional Sess. Judge. Haridwar passed in criminal appeal No. 16 of 1999 by which he allowed the appeal of the Appellants (Respondent No. 1 to 10) and acquitted them for the offence u/s s 365 and 368, I.PC. after setting aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.3.1999 passed by the Magistrate concerned. Each of them had been convicted by the Magistrate concerned u/s s 365 and 368 I.PC. to undergo R.I. for three years.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the appellate court recorded acquittal without considering the entire evidence on record and the same is based on surmises and conjectures.

The law is well embedded by the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, that interference in revision with an order of acquittal might take place if there is glaring defect of procedure such as the Court had No. jurisdiction to try the case or the Court had shut out some material evidence which the admissible or attempted to take into account the evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. The present case does not fall within the parameters settled by the Supreme Court as set forth above.

The Supreme Court had also expressed through the case of Khetrabasi Samual etc. Vs. The State of Orissa, that in the revision at the instance of a private complainant the revisional Court cannot appraise the evidence and upset the finding of the lower Court. The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant (as is the case here) against an order of acquittal, in respect of which the Government has a right of appeal.

It may be pointed out that as per Section 378(1), Cr. PC. the State may file an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal.

It is found that the appellate Court has given weighty reasons for allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of conviction passed by the concerned Magistrate, on over all judicial appraisal, the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the evidence of the prosecution was insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The impugned judgment can not be flawed and the same does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness.

In view of the above discussion, the revision is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.