9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent was an employee of Western India Plywoods and was head of the purchase section. In course of his duties, he was supposed to send empty barrels to the suppliers for getting the chemical Formal-dehyde. The prosecution alleged that in the process of sending such empty barrels to the suppliers for the purpose of getting refilled Formal-dehyde between the period 10.10.74 to 25.6.75, the accused-respondent manipulated the official records and documents and sold 660 empty barrels, the value of which was ₹ 69,300/- and himself appropriated the same, thereby committed offence under Section 408, 468 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 96 documents. On a thorough consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Magistrate. On a revision being filed by the accused, the High Court by the impugned Judgment interfered with the conviction and sentence and came to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Prakash, the learned counsel, appearing for the State of Kerala contended that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in interfering with an order of conviction and sentence passed thereunder by re-appreciating the evidence on record and, therefore, the impugned Judgment is wholly unsustainable in law. The learned counsel also contended that the High Court even has not considered several items of evidence which had been considered by the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tentamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinizing the impugned Judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid stand point, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by re-appreciating the oral evidence. The High Court also committed furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
