Riazuddin And Others vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 568 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Riazuddin And Others vs State Of U.P. on 5 May, 2025

Author: Gautam Chowdhary

Bench: Gautam Chowdhary

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71712
 
Court No. - 86
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 840 of 1996
 
Revisionist :- Riazuddin And Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :-Sanjiv Ratna, Ainakashi Sharma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party:- Govt. Advocate
 
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
 

ORDER ON CRIMINAL MISC. DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION NO. 02 OF 2024

1. Heard Ms. Ainakashi Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application, cause shown is sufficient.

3. Delay in filing the recall application is condoned.

4. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed.

ORDER ON CRIMINAL MISC. RECALL APPLICATION NO. 03 OF 2024

5. Heard Ms. Ainakashi Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

6. The present recall application has been filed for recalling the Judgement and order dated 12.09.2022 passed by this Court, whereby the criminal revision filed by the revisionist has been dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submit that the instant revision was filed in the year 1996, in which, the revisionist was enlarged on bail vide order dated 21.06.1996. Learned counsel further submits that since then, the revision was pending consideration before this Court and during the said interregnum, the case was listed from time to time but could not be taken up. Suddenly, the instant revision was listed on 12.09.2022 on which date, the revision has been decided in the absence of the counsel for the revisionist. Learned counsel further argued that neither any message regarding listing of the case nor the said case was seen on the internet as such the counsel had no knowledge about listing of the case. Learned counsel further argued that even the revisionist/deponent had no knowledge about the Judgement and order dated 12.09.2022 for about two years and it was in the first week of November, 2024, the deponent/revisionist received a notice issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Pilibhit with regard to deposit of fine, only then the revisionist came to know about the passing of the Judgement and order dated 12.09.2022. The revisionist thereafter tried to deposit the amount of fine but on account of lawyers strike in the district Court, the amount of fine could not be deposited. Thereafter, on 26.11.2024 an application was moved for depositing the amount of fine even then the same could not be deposited due to the same reason. Learned counsel further argued that the revisionist is also undergoing treatment of lung cancer at Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow and taking into consideration the entire factual aspect of the matter, the Judgement and order dated 12.09.2022 passed by this Court may be recalled and the instant revision may be restored to its original number and hear the present case "again" on merit.

8. This Court vide Judgement and order dated 12.209.2022 had passed the following order:-

"List revised. None appears for the revisionist to press this revision.

The matter is very old one, which is pending since 1996. 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 of conviction dated 13.06.1996 passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1992 (Riazuddin alias Munney anbd others Vs. State of U.P.) whereby Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1992 (Zakir Vs. State of U.P.) connected with Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1992 (Riyazuddin alias Munney), connected with Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1992 (Riyazur-rahman Vs. State of U.P. filed by the revisionist has been dismissed affirming the Judgement and order dated 28.10.1992 passed by learned IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in Criminal Case No. 1755 of 1991 (State Vs. Riazuddin ) whereby sentencing the revisionist under Section 394 I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment of 5 years R.I. along with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default in payment of fine to further undergo for imprisonment of three months R.I.

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."

9. Perusal of the record shows that the instant revision was filed in the year 1996 in which, the revisionist was enlarged on bail vide order dated 21.06.1996. Since then case was pending consideration and the revisionist was enjoying the bail order, who did not care to know about the progress of the case, on account of which, on 29.04.2016, bailable-warrant was also issued against him. Pursuant to which, the revisionist appeared before the concerned Court and was enlarged on bail with an undertaking that he will appear before this Court as is evident from the perusal of the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit dated 24.05.2016. Thus the conduct of the revisionist is apparent that he is taking undue advantage of the bail granted to him and was not interested in getting the revision to be decided finally.

10. When the case was listed on 12.09.2022, inspite of the revision of the list, none appears for the revisionist and since the matter was very old one pending since 1996, thus this Court with the assistance of learned A.G.A., had gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought by the revisionist. The grounds taken in restoration application filed by the learned counsel for the revisionist are that neither any message regarding the listing of the case nor the said case was seen on the internet as such the counsel had no knowledge about listing of the case but in support thereof, no cogent evidence has been appended to demonstrate the same. Further perusal of the Judgement and order dated 12.09.2022 shows that the same has been passed after considering the pleadings grounds taken in the revision and also has been passed after going through the Judgement and orders passed by the trial Court as well as appellant Court. On close scrutiny of Judgement and orders of trial Court, it was revealed that on the basis of evidence led before the trial Court, learned trial Court has rendered that the prosecution version was fully established. This Court, after considering entire evidence, was not of the view that findings of conviction rendered by learned trial Court were perverse or suffers from any illegality or error of jurisdiction, thus the instant revision was dismissed on merit.

11. Apart from recalling the Judgement and order dated 12.09.2022 as well as restoration of the revision to its original number, learned counsel has also prayed that to hear the present case "again" on merit.

12. With respect to the prayer sought by the revisionist that after restoring the case, hear the present case "again" on merit. It is relevant to perused Section 362 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-

"Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."

Since the Judgement and order dated 12.09.2022 was passed on merit and therefore in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C., the prayer sought that hear the present case "again" on merit is not sustainable.

13. Accordingly, the recall/restoration application lacks merit and is dismissed.

14. The concerned C.J.M is directed to take the revisionist in judicial custody so that the revisionist shall undergo remaining part of the sentence. The time granted to the revisionist to deposit the amount of fine, vide order dated 12.09.2022 has already lapsed, thus a month's further time from today is granted to the revisionist to deposit the amount of fine before the concerned court below.

15. Though, the instant order has been passed in presence of learned counsel for the revisionist, yet the Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned C.J.M. for necessary compliance, within a week from today.

Order Date :- 5.5.2025

S.Ali/C.P.Sahani