[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saket Sen vs Devendra Rao on 30 January, 2026
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8443
1 CRR-3289-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 30th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3289 of 2023
SAKET SEN
Versus
DEVENDRA RAO AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Puneet Chaturvedi and Shri Bharat Kumar Dubey - Advocate for the
applicant.
Shri Paritosh Trivedi assisted by Shri Umesh Vaidya - Advocate for the
respondents No.1 & 2.
Shri Pankaj Raj - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This revision was heard and reserved for orders on 28/01/2026.
2. This revision is filed against the order dated 06.07.2023 passed by
learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act),
Narsinghpur in Criminal Appeal No. 114/2023 (Saket Sen vs. Devendra Rao
& others) Crime No. 272/2017 by which the learned trial Court has rejected
the application filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. on 03/07/2023 by the
complainant Saket Sen on the grounds that police did not investigate the case
properly as the matter was related to the then Superintendent of Police,
Narsinghpur and therefore, evidence regarding assault of the applicant-Saket
was not collected which includes assault by accused Raghuraj and
threatening on phone, recording compact disk (CD), photographs of assault
and cutting of local newspaper etc., therefore he had filed a Writ Petition
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8443
2 CRR-3289-2023
bearing No.7228 of 2017 before the Hon'ble High Court for taking
documents on record.
3. It is seen that in the trial Court, the respondent objected to the
application and stated that application has been filed to delay the disposal of
the criminal appeal No. 114 of 2023.
4. Shri Puneet Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant laid great
emphasis on fair investigation and submit that what harm will be caused if
documents are admitted on record and, if ultimately, applicant fails to prove
those documents, then they may be discarded.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the judgement of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rambhau and another vs State of Maharashtra,
A.I.R. 2001 SC 2120 in which an essential question was not asked under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and High Court conducted additional examination so
as to rectify 'irregularity', therefore, it was held that no illegality was
committed. Therefore, it is seen that on factual matrix of this case of
Rambhau (supra), a case under Prevention of Corruption Act is totally
different from the case in which appeal against acquittal is pending before
the appellate Court.
6. On the other hand, Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned counsel for respondent
has opposed the revision and relied on order of the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Anil vs. Ku. Shradha & another (M.Cr.C.No.
8128/2024) dated 23.02.2024 and Vinod Raghuvanshi vs. Ajay Arora
(M.CR.C.NO.39743/2024) dated 26.03.2025. He supports the order passed
by the learned appellate Court.
7. Considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8443
3 CRR-3289-2023
the record.
8. The scope of revision is very limited. The provisions under Section 397
read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., reads as under :-
"Section 397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision
- (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and
examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal
Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of
satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding. Sentence or order, recorded or passed,
and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court,
and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of
any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in
confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond
pending the examination of the record.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not
be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any
appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any
person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no
further application by the same person shall be entertained by the
other of them."
Section 401. High Court's powers of revision - (1) In the case of
any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or
which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in
its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of
Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session
by section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of
revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed
of in the manner provided by section 392.
(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of
the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of
being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High
Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is
brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at
the instance of the party who could have appealed.
(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for
revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the
High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8443
4 CRR-3289-2023
erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary
in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the
application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the
same accordingly."
9. The provision under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. reads as under :-
"Section 391. Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct
it to be taken - (1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter,
the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be
necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such
evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate, or when
the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a
Magistrate.
(2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session
or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the
Appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to
dispose of the appeal.
(3) The accused or his pleader shall have the right to be present
when the additional evidence is taken.
(4) The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to
the provisions of Chapter XXIII, as if it were an inquiry."
10. Perused the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Narsinghpur in RCT No.500/2017 (State of MP through Police Station
Kotwali District Narsinghpur Vs. Devendra Rao & another) dated
17.03.2023 by which the accused persons have been acquitted of the charges
under Section 325/34 Cr.P.C. and the complainant in this case is Saket Sen
(P.W.4).
11. It is seen that Criminal Appeal No. 114/2023 is pending before the
learned appellate Court.
12. The case relied by learned counsel for the respondents in the case
of Anil (supra) M.Cr.C. No.8128/2024, which was a case under 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act, wherein the application under Section 391
Cr.P.C. was rejected wherein in Para-6, held as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8443
5 CRR-3289-2023
"6. ................ However, if the applicant had consciously decided
not to place it on record during the trial, then this court is of
considered opinion that the trial Court did not commit any mistake
by rejecting the application."
13. In the case of Vinod Raghuvanshi (supra) in para 7 held as under :-
"7. The law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by
Hon'ble Apex Court that power to record additional evidence
under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. should only be exercised when the
party making such request was prevented from presenting the
evidence in the trial despite due diligence being or that the facts
giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during
pendency of the appeal and that non-recording of such evidence
may lead to failure of justice."
In the aforesaid case, the appellate Court had rejected the application
filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. and the order was maintained.
1 4 . Perused the application filed by the applicant wherein very general
allegation is made that fair investigation was not conducted but when a party
goes into the trial, then the situation changes. Complainant-Saket Sen, whose
statement was recorded on 06.12.2022. The certified copy of the statement of
complainant Saket Sen and copy of Examination-in-chief and cross-
examination are on record. In examination-in-chief or cross-examination, he
never stated in Court that he was under no pressure. He could have stated
about possessing certain documents which were not on record and the police
refused to receive the documents despite him giving the documents.
Therefore, it is seen that after recording the statement of complainant-Saket
Sen on 06.12.2022, subsequently, this application under Section 391 of
Cr.P.C. was filed on 03.07.2023 i.e. after the judgment of acquittal on
17.03.2023. Therefore, the said application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C.
was filed as a after thought on acquittal of respondents. Even otherwise,
prima facie the nature of evidence produced before this court is not of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8443
6 CRR-3289-2023
impeachable quality. The argument of learned counsel for the
applicant/revisionist are not convincing to this Court that what harm can take
place if the documents are taken on record and evidence is recorded on
merits where other party will get a chance of cross-examine because the
Courts are already over burdened with huge pendency.
15. Therefore, in the present case for the reasons as mentioned above, there
is no ground to interfere in the order of the appellate Court dated
06/07/2023.
16. In view of the aforesaid, this revision has no merits and is accordingly,
dismissed.
17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court for
information.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
mc
