9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he substantive course of the prosecution. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC can be exercised where the interest of public justice requires interference for correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The principles which have been enunciated in Sheetala Prasad [ 2009 (12) TMI 1060 - SUPREME COURT] have been recently relied upon by this Court in MENOKA MALIK AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [ 2018 (8) TMI 2141 - SUPREME COURT] to hold that the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction in a revision petition filed by the first informant where the trial court overlooked material evidence. Thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 20 December 2021 is incorrect in holding that the appellant did not have locus to institute the criminal revision against the order of the trial court. The order of the trial court dated 3 October 2019 and the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 20 December 2021 is set aside - appeal allowed. - HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA For Appellant : Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR, Ms. Remya Raj, Adv., Ms. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment Hospital at 1925 hours on 25 December 2016 and that he had referred both the patients to Mandya District Hospital for further treatment. PW 4, Dr Manjoj P working at K R Hospital, Mysore stated that the statement of the appellant was recorded in his presence by the PSI Maddur at 0115 hours on 26 December 2016. 6 The appellant was examined as PW 7. During the course of his examination-inchief, the Public Prosecutor wanted to mark the complaint together with the signature of the appellant as an exhibit. An objection was raised by the defense counsel on the ground that in view of the statement of PW 2, during the course of his examination, the statement of the appellant is referable to Section 161 of the CrPC and cannot be marked as an exhibit. 7 The trial court in its order dated 3 October 2019 refused to mark the complaint on the basis of the statement by PW 2, and on the ground that PW 7 did not depose in his evidence that he gave the complaint to the police. The trial court observed: The witness has not deposed in his evidence that he has given complaint to the police. He has deposed that he has given statement while he was taking treatment in the hospital in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant as an exhibit is an interlocutory order, and dismissed the revision petition in view of the bar contained in Section 397(2) of CrPC. 9 The appellant moved this court, aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 20 December 2021. Notice was issued on 11 March 2022, when the proceedings in SC No. 82 of 2017 pending before the trial court were stayed. By an order dated 11 April 2022, this Court modified its earlier order and stayed only the further recording of the evidence of PW 7 (the appellant) at the trial. 10 We have heard Mr Senthil Jagadeesan, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr Shubranshu Padhi, counsel for the State of Karnataka and Mr T.R.B. Sivakumar, counsel for the respondents-accused. 11 The case of the prosecution is that the injured persons, including the appellant, were shifted from the Government Hospital at Maddur to Mandya District Hospital to K R Hospital, Mysore on 26 December 2016. The appellant has not stated at any stage that he was brought by the police to any of the hospitals for treatment. On the basis of the deposition of PW 4, it prima facie appears that the statement of the appellant was recorded at 0115 hours on 26 Dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Explaining the historical reason for the enactment of Section 397(2) CrPC, this Court observed in Amar Nath (supra) that the wide power of revision of the High Court is restricted as a matter of prudence and not as a matter of law, to an order that suffered from any error of law or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, if the statement of the appellant/ informant is not permitted to be marked as an exhibit, it would amount to a gross miscarriage of justice. 14 The challenge to the maintainability of the revision at the instance of the appellant impugning an order passed during the pendency of the trial must also be rejected. The revisional jurisdiction of a High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC, is a discretionary jurisdiction that can be exercised by the revisional court suo motu so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order recorded or passed by the trial court or the inferior court. As the power of revision can be exercised by the High Court even suo moto, there can be no bar on a third party invoking the revisional jurisdiction and inviting the attention of the High Court that an occasion to exercise the power has arisen. Holding a revision petition instituted by a complainant maintainable, Justice Santosh Hegde writing for this Court in K Pandurangan v SSR Velusamy (2003) 8 SCC 625 observed: 6. So far as the first question as to the maintainability of the revision at the instance of the complainant is concerned, we think the said argument ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdiction can be exercised by the High Court at the instance of a private complainant (1) where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible, (3) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused, (4) where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or the appellate court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence, and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. The principles which have been enunciated in Sheetala Prasad (supra) have been recently relied upon by this Court in Menoka Malik v State of West Bengal (2019) 18 SCC 721 to hold that the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction in a revision petition filed by the first informant where the trial court overlooked material evidence. Thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 20 December 2021 is incorrect in holding that the appellant did not have locus to institute the criminal revision against the order of the trial court. 16 In these circumstances, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
