Delhi High Court
Rajesh Rana vs State & Anr. on 16 August, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 6th August, 2010
Date of Order: 16th August, 2010
+CRL. REV. P. NO. 403/2010,
+Crl. M. (Bail) No. 1087/2010 and
+ Crl. M.A. No. 13272/2010
%
16.08.2010
RAJESH RANA ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.J. Khan, Advocate
Versus
STATE & ANR ... Respondents
Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, Addl. PP for the State.
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
1. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the
judgment 17th July, 2010, of the Appellate Court, whereby the conviction of
the Appellant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was upheld and
the sentence of the Appellant awarding him Simple Imprisonment for six
months and compensation of Rs. 80,000/-, in default, to further undergo SI for
two months was also upheld.
2. In the grounds of Revision, the Petitioner has alleged that the Trial
Court and the Appellate Court, both, failed to appreciate the defence
evidence resulting into miscarriage of justice and both the Courts failed to
appreciate that the cheques were not issued by the Petitioner against any
liability and both the Courts below failed to appreciate factual matrix and the
order passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, therefore, were liable
to be set aside.
3. It is settled law that as per Section 393 Cr.P.C., the judgment and order
passed by the appellate court in an appeal shall be final except in cases
provided under Sections 377, 378 and 384 (4) or Chapter XXX. Section 377
Cr.P.C. provides for appeal by State Government against sentence, Section
378 provides for appeal in case of acquittal and Section 384 (4) is in respect of
the jail appeals dismissed summarily. The case of the petitioner does not fall
under these three cases. Thus, the judgment of appellate court has attained
finality and the High Court can interfere under Section 397 Cr.P.C. only if there
was an issue of correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or
order recorded or passed by the Sessions Court or there was any irregularity
of the proceedings of the Sessions Court. The High Court in its power under
Section 397 cannot act as a court of second appeal and cannot re-appreciate
the entire evidence to substitute its own opinion against the opinion of the
appellate court. The scope of revision against the concurrent finding of fact is
very limited and ordinarily the concurrent finding of fact cannot be challenged
unless and until a gross misreading of evidence or manifest error of law or
miscarriage of justice is pointed out by the revisionist/petitioner. The
revisional jurisdiction does not confer power on the revisional Court to re-
appreciate the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion. The revisional
Court can examine the record only to satisfy itself that the court below had
conducted the proceedings in an appropriate manner and had taken into
account entire evidence before passing the judgment. The remedy of revision
can not to be resorted to as a second appeal.
4. The two Courts below had given concurrent finding on the issue of fact
that the Appellant had issued cheques against a liability and the cheques were
dishonoured and the Petitioner failed to pay the amount despite a demand
notice. Both the Courts had considered the defence taken by the Petitioner
that the cheques were not issued against any liability and found the defence
of the Petitioner to be false. This Court while entertaining Revision Petition
cannot re-appreciate the evidence and cannot act as a Court of second
Appeal.
5. I find no force in this Revision Petition. The same is hereby dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
August 16, 2010
acm
