Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai)
M.R. SHAH, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
Joseph Stephen and others – Appellants
Versus
Santhanasamy and others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 90-93 of 2022
Decided On : 25-01-2022
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 401 read with Section 372 – Revision – Scope and ambit – Sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. prohibits/bars High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction – Though High Court has revisional power to examine whether there is manifest error of law or procedure etc., however, after giving its own findings on findings recorded by court acquitting accused and after setting aside order of acquittal, High Court has to remit the matter to trial Court and/or first appellate Court, as the case may be – If order of acquittal has been passed by trial Court, High Court may remit the matter to trial Court and even direct retrial – However, if order of acquittal is passed by first appellate court, in that case, High Court has two options available, (i) to remit the matter to first appellate Court to rehear appeal; or (ii) in an appropriate case remit the matter to trial Court for retrial – In present case, High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside order of acquittal and reversing and/or converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and consequently convicted accused, while exercising powers under Section 401 Cr.P.C. – Order of conviction by High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401, Cr.P.C., is unsustainable, beyond scope and ambit of Section 401 Cr.P.C., more particularly sub-section (3) of Section 401, Cr.P.C. (Para 9)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 372 and 401 – Remedy against judgment of acquittal – After amendment in Section 372 Cr.P.C. after 2009 and insertion of proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., victim has a statutory right of appeal against order of acquittal – No revision shall be entertained at instance of victim against order of acquittal in a case where no appeal is preferred and victim is to be relegated to file appeal – Even same would be in interest of victim himself/herself as while exercising revisional jurisdiction, scope would be very limited, however, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, appellate Court would have a wider jurisdiction than revisional jurisdiction – Similarly, in a case where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint, complainant (other than victim) can prefer appeal against order of acquittal as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C., subject to grant of special leave to appeal by High Court – So far as victim is concerned, victim has not to pray for grant of special leave to appeal, as victim has a statutory right of appeal under Section 372 proviso and proviso to Section 372 does not stipulate any condition of obtaining special leave to appeal like sub-section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. in case of a complainant and in a case where order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint – Right provided to victim to prefer appeal against order of acquittal is an absolute right – While exercising powers under sub-section (5) to Section 401 Cr.P.C. to treat revision application as a petition of appeal, High Court is required to pass a judicial order – However, considering fact that even otherwise being victims they are having statutory right of appeal as per proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., it is fit and proper to remit the matter to High Court to treat revision applications as petition of appeals under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and to decide the same in accordance with law and on their own merits – Same would be in interests of all. (Paras 10.1, 10.2, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 14.05.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 323 to 326 of 2013, by which the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., has set aside the order of acquittal passed by the first appellate Court and has convicted accused, original accused nos. 6 to 8 have preferred present appeals.
Findings of Court:
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. High Court is directed to treat the revision applications as appeals under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and thereafter to decide and dispose of the same in accordance with law on their own merits.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 14.05.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 323 to 326 of 2013, by which the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., has set aside the order of acquittal passed by the first appellate Court and has convicted the accused, original accused nos. 6 to 8 have preferred the present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:
That all the original accused were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 506(ii) r/w section 149 IPC. That the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, by judgment dated 28.09.2012, convicted the accused under the aforesaid offences except Sections 307 and 506(ii) IPC and thereby acquitted the accused under Sections 307 and 506(ii) IPC.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 92/2012 in the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli (hereinafter referred to as the ‘first appellate Court’). Challenging the acquittal of the accused under Sections 307 and 506(ii) IPC, the victims (private respondents herein) filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 108 to 110 of 2012.
2.2 The first appellate Court, vide judgment dated 18.01.2013, allowed the appeal preferred by the accused and acquitted the accused. The criminal appeals filed by the victims against acquittal of the accused under Sections 307 and 506(ii) IPC came to be dismissed.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed by the first appellate Court allowing criminal appeal No. 92/2012 preferred by the accused, the victims – private respondents herein preferred criminal revision application nos. 323 to 326 of 2013 before the High Court under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. By the impugned judgment and order, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court has set aside the judgment and order passed by the first appellate Court allowing Criminal Appeal No. 92/2012 and acquitting the accused, and consequently has convicted the accused for the offences other than the offences under Sections 307 & 506(ii) IPC and has restored the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The High Court has however modified the sentences imposed by the trial Court.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court reversing the acquittal and thereupon convicting the accused, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., original accused nos. 6 to 8 have preferred the present appeals.
3. Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused has vehemently submitted that the High Court has erred in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
3.1 Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused has heavily relied upon Section 401(3) Cr.P.C. Relying upon sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C., it is vehemently submitted that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court has no jurisdiction at all to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. It is submitted that the only course open to the High Court would be to give its own finding and thereafter remit the matter either to the trial Court or to the first appellate Court, as the case may be. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788; Sheetal Prasad v. Sri Kant, (2010) 2 SCC 190; Ganesha v. Sharanappa, (2014) 1 SCC 87; and Ram Briksh Singh v. Ambika Yadav
(1) No revision shall be entertained at instance of victim against order of acquittal in a case where no appeal is preferred and victim is to be relegated to file appeal.(2) Right provided to victim ....
A victim has a statutory right to appeal against an acquittal under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., and a revision petition is not maintainable if the victim has not pursued that appeal.
The right to appeal granted to victims is prospective and applies only to judgments issued on or after December 31, 2009; earlier judgments can only be challenged through revisions.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited; it cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction without manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice.
Once an appeal against acquittal is dismissed on merits, a subsequent revision against the same judgment cannot be entertained.
Criminal Revision - Scope of criminal revision is very limited.
The victim's right to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal and the limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction against judgment of acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
