9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction and sentence under section 220(3) of the Companies Act 1956, maintainability of revision case against the order of conviction and sentence, availability of appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, powers of the High Court under section 397 for revision, restrictions on revision powers under sections 397 to 401, applicability of judgments on revisional jurisdiction, interpretation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding revisional powers. Conviction and Sentence: The petitioners were convicted under section 220(3) of the Companies Act 1956 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 each, with a default simple imprisonment term of one month. The revision was filed against this order of conviction and sentence by the accused-petitioners. Maintainability of Revision Case: A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the respondent regarding the maintainability of the revision case, citing section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for an appeal against conviction and sentence. The question arose whether the remedy of revision could be availed by the accused-petitioners when they had the option of appeal under section 374. Availability of Appeal under Section 374: Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for an appeal to the High Court in cases where a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed. The trial court's imposition of a fine of Rs. 5,000 on the petitioners made them eligible for an appeal under section 374, thus making the revision maintainable. Powers of High Court under Section 397 for Revision: Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to call for and examine records to ensure correctness, legality, or propriety of findings, sentences, or orders. It allows the court to suspend execution of sentences and release the accused on bail pending examination of records. Restrictions on Revision Powers under Sections 397 to 401: Sections 397 to 405 of the Code of Criminal Procedure outline the powers of the High Court for superintendence to prevent miscarriage of justice. The court can direct further inquiry into dismissed complaints or discharged cases under section 398, with limitations on converting acquittals into convictions. Judgments on Revisional Jurisdiction: Various judgments were cited by both parties to support their arguments on the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The court analyzed these judgments to determine whether the accused-petitioners could invoke the revisional jurisdiction under section 397 despite having the option of appeal. Interpretation of Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The court examined the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including sections 395 to 401, to understand the scope of revisional powers of the High Court. It considered precedents and interpretations from previous judgments to decide on the maintainability of the revision case. In conclusion, the court dismissed the criminal revision case based on the interpretation of the Code of Criminal Procedure and relevant precedents, emphasizing that when an appeal is available, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked by a party who could have filed an appeal but chose not to do so.
|
