9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1423 - SC - Indian LawsRevisional jurisdiction Under Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure - setting aside the order of acquittal - conviction of the Accused - non-availment of remedy of right of appeal against the order of acquittal - exercise of powers Under Sub-section (5) of Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure treating the revision application as petition of appeal. Whether the High Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction Under Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure is justified in setting aside the order of acquittal and convicting the Accused by converting the finding of acquittal into one of conviction? - HELD THAT - On a plain reading of Sub-section (3) of Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, it has to be held that Sub-section (3) of Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Though and as observed hereinabove, the High Court has revisional power to examine whether there is manifest error of law or procedure etc., however, after giving its own findings on the findings recorded by the court acquitting the Accused and after setting aside the order of acquittal, the High Court has to remit the matter to the trial Court and/or the first appellate Court, as the case may be - in the present case, the High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the order of acquittal and reversing and/or converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and consequently convicted the Accused, while exercising the powers Under Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of conviction by the High Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction Under Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, is therefore unsustainable, beyond the scope and ambit of Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, more particularly Sub-section (3) of Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure. In a case where the victim has a right of appeal against the order of acquittal, now as provided Under Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure and the victim has not availed such a remedy and has not preferred the appeal, whether the revision application is required to be entertained at the instance of a party/victim instead of preferring an appeal? - HELD THAT - It cannot be disputed that now after the amendment in Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure after 2009 and insertion of proviso to Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure, a victim has a statutory right of appeal against the order of acquittal. Therefore, no revision shall be entertained at the instance of the victim against the order of acquittal in a case where no appeal is preferred and the victim is to be relegated to file an appeal. Even the same would be in the interest of the victim himself/herself as while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the scope would be very limited, however, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate Court would have a wider jurisdiction than the revisional jurisdiction - in a case where the victim and/or the complainant, as the case may be, has not preferred and/or availed the remedy of appeal against the order of acquittal as provided Under Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 378(4), as the case may be, the revision application against the order of acquittal at the instance of the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall not be entertained and the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided Under Section 372 or Section 378(4), as the case may be. While exercising the powers Under Sub-section (5) of Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure treating the revision application as petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly, the High Court is required to pass a judicial order? - HELD THAT - While treating with the application for revision as petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly, the High Court has to record the satisfaction as provided Under Sub-section (5) of Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, where under the Code of Criminal Procedure an appeal lies, but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person, the High Court has jurisdiction to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly as per Sub-section (5) of Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, however, subject to the High Court being satisfied that such an application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do and for that purpose the High Court has to pass a judicial order, may be a formal order, to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly. While exercising the powers Under Sub-section (5) to Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure to treat the revision application as a petition of appeal, the High Court is required to pass a judicial order. However, considering the fact that even otherwise being victims they are having the statutory right of appeal as per proviso to Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the High Court to treat the revision applications as petition of appeals Under Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure and to decide the same in accordance with law and on their own merits. The same would be in the interests of all, namely, the victims as well as the Accused, as the appellate Court would have a wider scope and jurisdiction as an appellate Court, rather than the revisional court. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court reversing the acquittal and convicting the Accused is hereby quashed and set aside. The matters are remitted to the High Court. The High Court is directed to treat the revision applications as appeals Under Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter to decide and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court can convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Whether a revision application should be entertained at the instance of a party/victim instead of preferring an appeal when the victim has a right of appeal against the order of acquittal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Whether the High Court is required to pass a judicial order while exercising the powers under Sub-section (5) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to treat a revision application as a petition of appeal. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Conversion of Acquittal into Conviction under Revisional Jurisdiction The primary issue addressed is whether the High Court can convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment emphasizes that Section 401(3) specifically prohibits the High Court from converting an acquittal into a conviction. The Court cites several precedents, including *K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh* and *Sheetal Prasad v. Sri Kant*, to reinforce this prohibition. The judgment clarifies that the High Court can set aside an acquittal and order a retrial or rehearing by the trial or appellate court, but it cannot directly convert an acquittal into a conviction. The High Court's action of reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused was deemed unsustainable and beyond the scope of Section 401. Issue 2: Entertaining Revision Application When Appeal Lies The second issue concerns whether a revision application should be entertained when the victim has a statutory right of appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment highlights that after the 2009 amendment to Section 372, victims have a statutory right to appeal against an order of acquittal. Sub-section (4) of Section 401 stipulates that no revision shall be entertained if an appeal lies and has not been brought. The Court asserts that victims should be relegated to file an appeal, as the appellate jurisdiction provides a broader scope than revisional jurisdiction. This ensures that the victim's statutory right of appeal is not undermined by mistakenly or inadvertently filing a revision application. Issue 3: Judicial Order for Treating Revision as Appeal The third issue addresses whether the High Court must pass a judicial order to treat a revision application as a petition of appeal under Sub-section (5) of Section 401. The judgment confirms that the High Court must pass a judicial order to treat a revision application as an appeal, provided it is satisfied that the application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies and that it is necessary in the interests of justice. This judicial order ensures that the High Court records its satisfaction and follows the correct procedural requirements. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment that reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused, as it was beyond the scope of Section 401. The matter was remitted to the High Court with directions to treat the revision applications as appeals under Section 372 and to decide them in accordance with the law. This approach ensures that the victims' statutory right of appeal is upheld and that the appellate court exercises its broader jurisdiction to deliver justice. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court was instructed to handle the cases as appeals, providing a comprehensive and just resolution.
|
