The judgment emphasized the limitations of revisionary powers of the High Court under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. and the prohibition on converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction under Section 401(3) of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

Assailing the judgment dated 11.04.2007 in C.C.No.90 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala, the petitioner/de facto complainant filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”).

2. The revision case was admitted on 27.12.2007.

3. The admitted facts in the present criminal revision case are that on 10.11.2001 at Ramakrishnapuram, accused No.1 married P.W.1/petitioner/Ch.Suryavahini as per Hindu Dharma Sastras and it is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with a female child on 10.12.2002. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused and the same was taken on file under Section 498(A), 323 and 506 of IPC.

4. After full pledged trial, the trial Court found the accused not guilty of the charges under Section 498(A), 323 and 506 of IPC and acquitted them under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. only evaluating the prima facie legality, correctness, or the propriety of the orders, findings and/or sentence of a lower court in accordance with the established rules of criminal jurisprudence.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/de facto complainant preferred the present revision.

6. Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel representing for the petitioner/de facto complainant and Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused.

7. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or procedure or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the judgment rendered by the trial Court in C.No.90 of 2005?”

8. No doubt, the law is settled on the point of revision that the power of revision accords a superior court, the prerogative to scrutinize and review the decisions made by a lower court at any stage of a trial and rectify errors or irregularities in conformity with the cannons of natural justice and equitable treatment among other grounds. The revisionary powers of the High Court can be sourced to section 401 of the Cr.P.C., whereunder the High Court has the discretionary power to inter alia reverse/alter a finding by a lower court; order a retrial; suspend the execution of a lower court’s order; issue a warrant of arrest and direct the recording of additional evidence. However, a revision Court, therefore, has a limited mandate of only evaluating the prima facie legality, correctness, or the propriety of the orders, findings and/or sentence of a lower court in accordance with the established rules of criminal jurisprudence.

9. It is also settled proposition that such jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a routine manner by the higher courts and can be only invoked in specific instances wherein the decisions under challenge are inter-alia grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

10. For which, this Court fortified by a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 as well Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, 2022 SCC Online SC 453.

11. Even in another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Joseph Stephen v. Santhanaswamy, (2022) 13 SCC 115, held at paragraph Nos.10 and 12 as follows:

“10. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and on a plain reading of subsection (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C., it has to be held that sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. 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,