Serious and objective exercise of revisional powers, requirement for specific reasons for interfering with concurrent findings on facts

( 1 ) SERVICE is complete.

( 2 ) LEAVE granted.

( 3 ) NOBODY is appearing for the respondent.

( 4 ) WE heard learned counsel for the state of Andhra Pradesh. In this case respondent was convicted by the trial court of offence under Section 34 (A) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00. He filed an appeal before the sessions court and his conviction was confirmed but the sentence was reduced to imprisonment for 6 months but the fine portion was retained untouched. The respondent preferred a Revision before the High court and the learned single Judge of the High court has disposed of the said Revision with the following reasoning: "the ingredients of Section 34 (A) of the act have not been established. The evidence in this case is shaky. The courts below on such evidence erred in convicting the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner - accused are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He shall be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. "

( 5 ) WE are unhappy to point out that the aforesaid type of slipshod exercise of revisional powers of the High court is seen form the same bench of the High court in other cases also. It is not with pleasure that we use this opportunity to remind that powers under revisional jurisdiction of the High court must be exercised more seriously and objectively. Reasons are necessary for interfering with the concurrent findings on facts entered by the trial court and the Appellate court and such reasons must be recorded in the order. A general and omnibus statement that courts below erred in convicting the accused" is hardly sufficient to make judicial interference with the concurrent findings. We are of the opinion that there was abdications of the High court function in exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

( 6 ) WE, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and send the case back to the high court for disposal of the Revision afresh in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the both sides.

( 7 ) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly.