Ramdas & Another vs State Of U.P. & Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 4059 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R. 
 
Court No. - 24
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 429 of 1998
 
Revisionist :- Ramdas & Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- H.N.Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,R.C Deepak,R.K. Choube
 

 
Hon'ble Shailendra Kumar Agrawal,J.

Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Nagina Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.02.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Maharajganj in Criminal Revision No.56 of 1996 (Chhatradhari Vs. Ram Das and others), whereby the order dated 09.07.1996 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj in case no.320 of 1996 (State Vs. Ram Das and others) was set aside and the learned Magistrate was directed to pass fresh orders in the light of observations made therein.

The brief facts of the case are that a non-cognizable report was lodged by the opposite party no.2, Chhatradhari Dhobi under Sections 504 & 427 IPC at Police Station Shyamdevarwa, District Maharajganj on 06.04.1991 against the revisionists; that charge sheet dated 15.05.1991 in aforesaid sections was submitted against the revisionists and they were summoned by the learned Magistrate and statements of the accused/ revisionists under Section 251 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 14.06.1994 for the offence under Sections 504 & 427 IPC; that from order dated 09.07.1996 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj it appears that a supplementary charge sheet dated 29.01.1992, but singed by the Investigating Officer on 29.01.1991, for the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was submitted by the police on 29.01.1992; that in pursuance of the said supplementary charge sheet, the Assistant Prosecuting Officer moved an application 48Kha on 11.04.1996 before the learned Magistrate stating therein that the revisionists have not obtained bail in Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, therefore, they should be taken into judicial custody; that against this application of the Assistant Prosecuting Officer, the revisionists have filed objections and the learned Magistrate after considering the averments made in the application as well as objections, rejected the application vide order dated 09.07.1996 finding no offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to be made out against the revisionists; that being aggrieved by the order dated 09.07.1996, the opposite party no.2 preferred a revision being criminal revision no.56 of 1996, which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Maharajganj by impugned order dated 07.02.1998; that feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.02.1998, the present revisionists have preferred this revision.

Learned counsel for the revisionists has argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly allowed the revision preferred by the opposite party no.2. He argued that it was the subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate to frame charge against the revisionists on the basis of materials available on record and he rightly proceeded under Section 251 Cr.P.C. against the revisionists under Sections 504 & 427 IPC and mere sending supplementary charge sheet is not sufficient to frame charge against the revisionists under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in law in directing the learned Magistrate to re-examine the matter on the ground that whether any offence is made out for insulting the complainant at public place under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He further submitted that from the allegations levelled against the revisionists, no offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the revisionists. He also argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge acted beyond jurisdiction and the powers vested in it while passing the order impugned.

Per contra learned A.G.A. could not controvert the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionists.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the leaned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the order passed by the learned Magistrate in rejecting the application moved by Assistant Prosecuting Officer.

The only prayer of the learned A.P.O. before the learned Magistrate was that the accused were not on bail for the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, hence they be taken into judicial custody. He did not request the learned Magistrate to commit the case for the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for trial as the case is triable by the Special Court or charge sheet submitted for the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act be registered or cognizance be taken on that charge sheet.

It is very astonishing matter that the charge sheet under Sections 504 & 427 IPC was prepared by the Investigating Officer on 15.05.1991 and it was submitted before the learned Magistrate thereafter and the Magistrate took cognizance on 20.09.1991 while the charge sheet under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was prepared by the Investigating Officer on 29.01.1991 and it is being submitted before the Magistrate on 29.01.1992, then why the A.P.O. pressed before the Magistrate for taking the accused into custody after a long gap i.e. after more than 5 years. No request by A.P.O. was made for taking cognizance on this charge sheet filed under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Still this charge sheet has not been registered in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The learned lower revisional court itself was agreed with the order passed by the trial court when it observed that complainant himself has stated that accused themselves sown the crop of Masoor, hence the accused themselves were in possession of that land and complainant was only entitled to get his share out of that crop, hence certainly there was no evidence against the accused under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the learned trial court did not commit any mistake while passing the order dated 09.07.1996.

However, the learned lower revisional court further observed that it was the duty of the learned trial court to see whether any other offence was being committed by the accused under any provision of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as the accused are said to have committed insult of the complainant by abusing him at public place, but the learned trial court did not consider this fact, hence the order of the trial court was set aside by the learned lower revisional court.

The revisional jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is very limited one. The object of the provisions of revision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders which upon the face of them bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is palpable error, in compliance with the provisions of law. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference of such cases.

Hence in my opinion and in light of the principles applying at the time of disposing of the revision, the lower revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the order of the trial court and by advising the trial court to consider the matter that any other offence is also made out. As the learned learned lower revisional court was confined only to see the legality of the order passed by the trial court and the revisional court also finds the justification in passing of the order by the trial court. It was not obligatory on the part of the revisional court to further guide and to give finding that any other offence is also made out against the accused.

I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

Accordingly, the order impugned dated 07.02.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Maharajganj is hereby set aside and the order passed by the learned Magistrate is upheld.

The revision is allowed.

Let a copy of this order along with lower court records be sent back for further proceeding in the matter.

Order Date :- 7.9.2017

Anoop