Hoshiyar Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 258 UK

        HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                Criminal Revision No.748 of 2022

Hoshiyar Singh Bisht                         .....       Revisionist

                                  Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                ...... Respondents

Present:-     Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate for the revisionist.
              Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Government Advocate along with
              Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to the

following:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 23.09.2021

passed in Criminal Case No.1911 of 2016,

State Vs. Ganesh Joshi and Others, by the

Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Dehradun ("the case"). By which the private

respondents have been acquitted of the

charge under Sections 147, 148, 188, 332,

429 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, under

Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act,

1932 and Section 11(6) of Prevention of

Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960.

(ii) Order dated 15.11.2022 passed in Misc.

Case No.548 of 2022, Hosiyar Singh Vs.

State and others, by the Court of 7th

Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. By

it, the appeal against judgment and order

dated 23.09.2021, passed in the case has

been dismissed on the ground of

maintainability.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. On 12.01.2023, when this matter was taken up

for hearing on behalf of the State an objection was raised

that the revision at the instance of the revisionist is not

maintainable because he is not a person connected in any

manner in the case.

4. On the other hand, on behalf of the revisionist, it

has been argued that, in fact, State wanted to withdraw the

case and when they became unsuccessful in it, the

prosecutor did not produce certificate under Section 65B of

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("the Act") to prove the

electronic evidence before the Court. He also did not

examine all the witnesses.

5. This Court on 12.01.2023 passed the following

order and listed it for today:-

"Learned counsel for the revisionist has cited the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to argue that, in fact, it is a case, which should be entertained by this Court. He would submit that under the political pressure, the State first attempted to withdraw the case against the private respondents under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Once it was dismissed by the Court, the Prosecutor did not adduce evidence, as was expected of him. It is submitted that the Prosecutor in such an important case did not produce the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("the Act") to prove the electronic evidence before the Court. Not only this, out of 28 witnesses, it is submitted that only 18 witnesses were examined. Learned counsel would submit that the trial court on the one hand, discarded the prosecution electronic evidence for the want of certificate under Section 65B of the Act. But, on the other hand, in paras 44 and 52 of the trial court's judgment, the Court read in evidence, the electronic evidence filed by the private respondents without there being any certificate under Section 65B of the Act.

As soon as, this matter was taken up, on behalf of the State, strong objection is raised that this revision is not maintainable at the instance of the revisionist.

The question, which falls for consideration is, as to whether this Court should decide the question of maintainability of the revision after hearing the State counsel or the Court should also issue notice to the private respondents to hear on the question of maintainability of the revision and for admission, if such a situation arises. It is at this stage, learned State counsel seeks adjournment.

List this matter on 13.01.2023"

6. This is a criminal revision. Learned counsel for

the revisionist relied on the principles of law as law laid

down in the case of Amanullah Vs. State of Bihar (2016) 6

SCC 699, to argue that even a person who is not connected

with the criminal case may agitate the findings. It is argued

that in the instant case the horse was killed. Learned

counsel would argue that any relative of the horse could

not agitate the matter further. It is argued that the State is

shielding the private respondents. The prosecution was not

vigilant.

7. On behalf of the revisionist, it is submitted that

the revisionist has locus standi to challenge the impugned

orders.

8. In fact, the question of locus standi has been

raised in the criminal cases on multiple occasions.

9. In the case of PSR Sadhanantham Vs.

Arunachalam and Another (1980) 3SCC 141, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has discussed the issue and observed that

"nor are we impressed with the submission that the

brother of the deceased in the case, or any other high-

minded citizen, is an officious meddler who has no

business nor grievance when the commission of

grievous crime is going unpunished. There is a spiritual

sensitivity for our criminal justice system which

approves of the view that a wrong done to anyone is a

wrong done to oneself, although for pragmatic

considerations the law leashes the right to initiate

proceedings in some situations. Again, justice is

functionally outraged not only when an innocent

person is punished but also when a guilty criminal gets

away with it satisfying the legal system. The deep

concern of the law is to track down, try and punish the

culprit, and if found not guilty, to acquit the accused."

10. This Court has two options at this stage, namely,

to decide the question of locus standi, after hearing learned

counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the

revisionist and proceed further. There may be then an

eventuality of hearing on admission but what if thereafter,

the revision is admitted? Because, in such an eventuality,

the question of locus standi would find disposal without

hearing the affected persons, who are the private

respondents. The second option would be to issue the

notices to the private respondents on the limited question

of hearing on locus standi of the revisionist.

11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

this Court is of the view that first and foremost question of

locus standi of the revisionist to maintain the revision

would be decided. For that matter, issue notices to the

private respondents.

12. List the matter on 29.03.2023 for hearing on the

limited question of maintainability of the revision.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 13.01.2023 Sukhbant