9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against the judgment of the Kerala High Court interfering with the conviction and sentence under Sections 408, 468, and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. Analysis: The accused, an employee, was convicted of diverting empty barrels meant for Formaldehyde, selling them, and misappropriating the proceeds. The Magistrate found the accused guilty based on evidence of falsified documents and diversion of goods. The accused was sentenced to imprisonment and fines under Sections 408 and 468, with a separate fine under Section 477A. The Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction. However, the High Court, in revision, overturned the conviction, citing lack of evidence. The State contended that the High Court overstepped its revisional jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence already considered. The defense argued that without proof of entrustment, the Section 408 charges were not proven. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-assessing evidence, emphasizing that revision is not an appellate function. The High Court's failure to consider crucial evidence examined by the lower courts was noted. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was deemed legally unsustainable, and the original conviction and sentence were reinstated, leading to the cancellation of bail bonds and ordering the respondent to surrender. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrate and upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. The respondent was directed to surrender to serve the sentence. The Court found the High Court's revisional interference unjustified, emphasizing the limits of revisional jurisdiction and the need to prevent miscarriages of justice.
|
