SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Ker) 106

S.PADMANABHAN
P. Rajappan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent


Judgment :-

The object of revisional jurisdiction is to afford a paternal or supervisory power to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, lack of proper precautions, etc., which has resulted in some injury or undeserved hardship. To appeal is a statutory right. But that is not the case with revisional jurisdiction. In revisional jurisdiction, it is for the Court to interfere in exceptional cases where it seems that some real substantial injustice has been done. Violation of fundamental rules in the matter of appreciation of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice is one of the instances where the High Court is justified in interfering for the purpose of revising the decision of a subordinate court in order to correct the injustice that has happened. If a particular fact is decided totally in the absence of evidence or misconstruing the evidence on record totally, the High Court may be justified in interfering. At the same time the mere possibility of another view on a particular point is no reason for interference.

2. The presumption of law is that a person is innocent unless and until otherwise found and convicted by a Cour









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top