Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.P. THAKER, J.
Atulbhai Rameshchandra Modi - Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 661 of 2009
Decided On : 02-11-2018
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 397 read with Section 401 – Revisional jurisdiction – Under revisional jurisdiction, High Court can call upon record of any inferior Court and examine correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to regularity of any proceedings of such interior Court and to pass appropriate orders – Though revisional powers of High Court are very wide but are purely discretionary and should be exercised only in a rare cases to prevent miscarriage of justice and when there is glaring defect in procedure on point of law resulting in failure of justice – Revisional jurisdictional cannot be exercised to substitute its own view with that of Magistrate on question of fact – Unless, finding of Court below is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is based on irrelevant evidence or ignoring relevant evidence, it is impermissible to interfere with order of Court below in revisional jurisdiction. (Para 8)
A.P. Thaker, J.
1. The applicants - accused have filed the present application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter be referred to as 'the Code') against the order dated 29.09.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Bharuch, Camp at Ankleshwar in Special Atrocity Case No. 35 of 2009, whereby the learned Special Judge has allowed the application of learned Additional Public Prosecutor and has ordered to consolidate both Special Atrocity Cases No. 35 of 2009 and 39 of 2001.
2. The applicants are the accused in Special Atrocity Case No. 35 of 2009 and Special Atrocity Case No. 39 of 2001 which have been pending for trial in the Trial Court. By way of the present application, the applicants have challenged the order of consolidation of both the Special Atrocity Case No. 35 of 2009 and Special Atrocity Case No. 39 of 2001.
3. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are as under:-
3.1 That the First Information Report (FIR) being C.R. No. II-104/2001 came to be registered with Ankleshwar City Police Station on 09.06.2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") against the present applicants. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused person for the aforesaid offences.
3.2 As the said offences were triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The charge against the accused came to be framed by the learned Special Atrocity Judge on 12.07.2002 for the aforesaid offences.
3.3 Thereafter, the trial commenced and two panch witnesses have been examined. The original complainant, however, on 14.10.2002 had submitted an application for re-investigation, as the investigation was not done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police as per Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Rules).
3.4 The said application has been contested by the applicants and the same has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bharuch on 29.04.2004.
3.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid order, the original complainant had preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 431 of 2004 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 09.07.2004 admitted the said criminal revision application and stayed further proceedings of Special Atrocity Case No. 39 of 2001.
3.6 It is alleged that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ankleshwar started re-investigation on 06.02.2007 after reporting to learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleshwar and on the basis of the order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police dated 22/26.05.2004, though the further proceedings of the said case was stayed by this Court.
3.7 Consequently, on 28.03.2007, the Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted the supplementary charge-sheet to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleshwar. The accused summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleshwar for furnishing the bail and they learnt that the said Court was going to commit the said case to the Court of Sessions, though the said case had already been committed.
3.8 On 23.08.2007, the Advocate of the accused had filed the purshish and declared that there is no need to commit another Sessions Case based upon the supplementary charge-sheet, as the said case was already committed to the Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Ankleshwar in the year 2001.
3.9 The heed of the accused has been disregarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleshwar and subsequently, another Sessions has also been committed based upon the said supplementary charge-sheet and other Police papers, which can be termed as second set of in
SupremeToday
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
