Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 November, 2022
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1532 of 2003
Revisionist :- Raj Kumar And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashutosh Vaish,R.K.Dubey,Rajeev Chaudhary,Rajiv Chowdhury
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
List revised. None appears for the revisionist to press this revision.
The matter is very old one, which is pending since 2003. With the assistance of learned A.G.A. I have through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought by the revisionist.
This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.05.2003 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Varanasi dismissing the Appeal No. 193 of 1993, Raj Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of judgement and order dated 15.10.1999 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 6036 of 1994, State Vs. Raj Kumar and another, convicting the revisionists under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each.
It has been averred in the instant revision that the trail Court has erred in believing the testimony of the witnesses. He has further argued that whole approach of the trial Court, convicting and sentencing the accused-revisionist is incorrect. The impugned judgment and order suffers from gross illegality, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and, therefore, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397/401 CrPC, should set-aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below be set aside and the accused-revisionist is liable to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the trial Court has correctly analyzed the evidence, and has come to correct conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-revisionist. He has further submitted that the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the trial Court after analyzing the evidence in detail, which is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397/401 CrPC. He has further submitted that the view taken by the Courts below is not an impossible view and, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the order of conviction, and he has prayed for dismissal of the revision.
I have considered the pleadings made in the present revision, submissions advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent-State, including the evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case.
The revision jurisdiction of the High Court as contemplated under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. operates within narrow limits and can be exercised only in exceptional cases where interests of public justice require interference for the correction of gross miscarriage of justice. It cannot be exercised because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated evidence on record. The revision power of the High Court is to be exercised when there is manifest error of law or glaring defect in the procedure.
In the instant case close scrutiny of evidence reveals that on the basis of evidence, learned trial Court has rendered that the prosecution version was established. Considering entire evidence, it cannot be said that findings rendered by learned trial Court are perverse or suffers from any illegality or error of jurisdiction. It is well settled that the revision Court generally would not re-appreciate evidence and would not substitute findings of fact unless the findings of Court below is not based on evidence or suffers from perversity or illegality. It is also well settled that if on the basis of evidence two views are possible, the view favourable to accused persons has to be taken. In the instant case, considering entire evidence it cannot be said that impugned judgment and orders suffer from any such illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction so as to warrant any interference by this Court.
In view of above, the instant revision lacks merit and is, accordingly dismissed.
In case, the accused-revisionist has not deposited the amount of fine, he is directed to deposit the amount of fine before the concerned Court below, as directed by the trial Court within a period of 45 days from today.
Office is directed to transmit the record of trial Court as well as copy of the judgement to the Court below.
Order Date :- 11.11.2022
SA
