Telangana High Court

Md.Ameeruddin, Ranga Reddy Dt., vs M/S.Mahalakshmi Chit Fund A1 ... on 20 September, 2023

Bench: E.V. Venugopal

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

        CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2808 OF 2017

ORDER:

1 Heard Sri Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel

representing Sri S.V.Ramana, the learned counsel for the

respondents.

2 This criminal revision case is filed challenging the

judgment dated 28.05.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.105 of 2013 on

the file of the Court of the XII Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Vikarabad whereby the learned

Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgement

dated 04.10.2013 passed in C.C.No.405 of 2008 on the file of

the Court of the learned JFC Magistrate, Tandur, R.R.District.

3 The facts in brief are that the petitioner herein filed a

private complaint before the trial Court under Section 200

Cr.P.C against the respondents praying the court to take action

by referring the private complaint to the police to enquire and

punish the respondents herein for the offences under Sections

405, 120-A and 420 IPC. The learned Magistrate directed the

SHO Tandur PS on 30.04.2006 to investigate into the case and

file report on or before 10.05.2006. Thereupon, the SHO,

Tandur PS registered a case, however, referred the same as

false and accordingly filed a final report. Hence the petitioner

filed the protest petition.

4 The gist of the complaint was that the petitioner was

subscriber in the company of the first respondent vide chit

No.A-86 for Rs.1.00 lakh with monthly instalment of Rs.2,500/-.

The petitioner bid the chit and received the bid amount. Due to

some financial problems he could not pay some installments.

While paying the chit amount to the petitioner, the first

respondent obtained blank cheques signed by the petitioner and

his wife, blank stamp papers signed by the petitioner. First

respondent misused the same with the help of second

respondent Nos.2 to 6 and got filed a criminal case vide

C.C.No.228 of 2004 under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, but the

same was dismissed. It is the further case of the petitioner that

he requested the first respondent to return the blank cheque,

promissory note, blank non-judicial stamp paper with

denomination of Rs.10/- signed by him and his wife which were

deposited with the first respondent. The petitioner also accepted

to repay the balance due of Rs.13,001/- to the first respondent

but the respondents failed to return the same. However, as the

respondents did not return the cheque and the other

documents, he filed the complaint before the trial Court. As

stated supra, the trial Court as well as the appellate court have

rejected the case of the petitioner.

5 Both the courts below observed that there is nothing on

record to show that when the petitioner entrusted the alleged

cheque and other documents to the respondents, what was the

number of the cheque and what is the chit number he lifted. As

observed by the courts below, the wife of the petitioner is also a

relevant person to speak about the said facts since it is stated

that she had also subscribed her signature on the cheque and

the promissory note. At one stage it was stated that he gave

non-judicial stamp papers worth Rs.10/- and at one stage it was

stated that it was on Rs.100/-. So there is inconsistency on that

aspect. The petitioner could not prove Exs.P.1 to P.7. There are

some infirmities which are incurable. The contention of the

petitioner that the cheque which was given by him was misused

and a criminal case was foisted against him in another court

cannot be accepted for the reason that the nature of offence in

that case and the present case are different. The petitioner

contends that the first respondent kept the documents in

possession of one Mr.Khader. But the petitioner could not

produce or procure the particulars of the said Khader and get

him examined before the Court to establish the said facts.

6 In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh and Ors. vs. State of

Bihar and Ors. 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

12. We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re- appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the informant under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional court, prohibiting it from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party.

14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal in exercise of its

(2002) 6 SCC 650

revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the informant. It may be that the High Court on appreciation of the evidence on record may reach a conclusion different from that of the trial court. But that by itself is no justification for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment of acquittal. We cannot say that the judgment of the trial Court in the instant case was perverse. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself. At best the High Court thought that the prosecution witnesses were reliable while the trial court took the opposite view. This Court has repeatedly observed that in exercise of revisional jurisdictional against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party, the Court exercises only limited jurisdiction and should not constitute itself into an appellate court which has a much wider jurisdiction to go into questions of facts and law, and to convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. It cannot be lost sight of that when a re-trial is ordered, the dice is heavily loaded against the accused, and that itself must caution the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction. We, therefore, find no jurisdiction for the impugned order of the High Court ordering re-trial of the appellants.

15. The High Court has noticed the fact that the State had preferred an appeal against the acquittal of the appellants. That appeal was dismissed by the High Court on the ground of limitation. In principle that makes no difference, because the dismissal of the appeal even on the ground of limitation is a dismissal for all purposes. As observed earlier, the jurisdiction of the High Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is much wider than the jurisdiction of revisional court exercising jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party. All grounds that may be urged in support of the revision petition may be urged in the appeal, but not vice versa. The dismissal of an appeal preferred by the State against the order of acquittal puts a seal of finality on the judgment of the trial court. In such a case it may not be proper exercise of discretion to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of acquittal at the instance of a private party. Exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such a case may give rise to an incongruous situation where an accused tried and acquitted of an offence, and the order of acquittal upheld in appeal by its dismissal, may have to face a second trial for the same offence of which he was acquitted.

7 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and also in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court supra, I am of the considered view that the

petitioner failed to bring home the guilt of the respondents for

the alleged offences of Sections 405, 120-A and 420 IPC.

Accordingly I see no merit in this revision.

8 In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed,

confirming the judgement dated dated 28.05.2017 passed in

Crl.A.No.105 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the XII

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

Vikarabad.

9 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal