The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the revisional court should not act as a second Appellate Court and substitute its own views for those of the Court below unless there is a clear error of law or a gross injustice in the order or proceeding of the lower court. The revisional court should exercise its power with caution and restraint, and only in exceptional cases where there is a manifest illegality or a serious miscarriage of justice.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioners were arrayed as accused in the case registered for the offenses under Section 324 r/w.34 of IPC and the learned judicial magistrate convicted the accused for the said offence. The appeal was filed before the learned session judge and the same was dismissed. Therefore, the present criminal revision is filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner stated that there are several discrepancies in the statement of PW 1 to 4 under Section 161 of the CrPC and the same was not considered by the court below. It was furthermore submitted that there was a delay of 10 days in lodging an FIR and no explanation was given for the same.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that a revisional court should not reexamine the evidence or modify the factual findings unless they are manifestly erroneous or perverse. Unless there is a clear error of law or severe injustice in the lower court's order or procedure, the revisional court should refrain from acting as a second appellate court and substituting its own views for those of the court below. When using its authority, the revisional court ought to proceed cautiously and sensibly, and only in extreme circumstances including apparent illegality or a grave miscarriage of justice.
It was noted that the delay in the lodging of an FIR was only a procedural delay and would not affect the prosecution case.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that there exists no error of law or a gross injustice in the order or proceeding of the Courts below to exercise revisional power. However, after taking into consideration the age of Petitioner No. 1 and the entire family depending on the 2nd petitioner, and if they were subjected to any imprisonment, the family will be disturbed. The court observed that to meet the ends of justice the fine alone can be imposed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 324 r/w.34 of IPC.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the criminal revision.
Case title: Mannam Venkamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Srinivas
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2144 OF 2010
Advocate for the Petitioner: SRI. VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :