2002 (5) TMI 860 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Departure from the regular norm in the pronouncement of judgment.
2. High Court's interference with the order of acquittal.
3. Scope and limits of High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Departure from the Regular Norm in the Pronouncement of Judgment:
The Supreme Court noted a significant departure from the regular norm in the pronouncement of judgment by the High Court. The High Court had set aside the acquittal order of the Sessions Judge and directed the trial court to write a fresh judgment, giving proper judicial mind to the evidence on record. This direction was strongly criticized by the appellant's senior advocate, and the Supreme Court found justification in the criticism. The Supreme Court emphasized that writing a fresh judgment as directed by the High Court was a significant departure from normal judicial procedures.

2. High Court's Interference with the Order of Acquittal:
The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge. The High Court's judgment stated that the reasons for acquittal were not proper and justifiable and could be considered perverse. The Supreme Court examined the Sessions Judge's findings in paragraph 30 of the trial court's judgment, which included various reasons for acquittal such as inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, failure to establish the place of occurrence, and unreliability of witnesses. The Supreme Court found that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by setting aside the acquittal order, as the Sessions Judge's findings were based on a detailed consideration of evidence.

3. Scope and Limits of High Court's Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC:
The Supreme Court discussed the scope and limits of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the CrPC. The Court referred to past judgments, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure, a manifest error on a point of law, or a flagrant miscarriage of justice. The Court reiterated that the High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, even indirectly by ordering a retrial. The revisional jurisdiction is not an appellate forum for reappraising evidence but is meant to correct substantial miscarriages of justice. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's order directing a fresh judgment was beyond its revisional powers and constituted a significant departure from normal judicial procedures.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the acquittal order of the Sessions Judge. The bail bonds, if any, were discharged. The Supreme Court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the importance of not exceeding it, ensuring that justice is served without overstepping judicial boundaries.