Revisional jurisdiction does not equate to appellate powers; courts may not overturn concurrent findings unless a clear miscarriage of justice is shown.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 438 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 - Revisional powers of High Court examined with reference to previous judgments concerning supervisory jurisdiction and potential miscarriage of justice - High Court reiterated that it cannot re-appreciate evidence unless glaring features of injustice are shown. (Paras 2, 3, 12)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 380 and 454 - Conviction under both sections upheld by Sessions Judge - Concurrent findings of guilt criticized on grounds of insufficient independent witnesses during seizure - No prejudice demonstrated, and fingerprint evidence validly upheld as match with accused. (Paras 6, 18)

Facts of the case:
The revisionists, convicted for offences under sections 380 and 454 IPC, challenged the conviction stemming from a seizure deemed improper, arguing lack of local witness testimony and insufficient evidence for fingerprint identification.

Findings of Court:
The High Court maintained the conviction citing adequate evidence of fingerprint matches and reaffirmed the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts without interference.

Issues: The main issues included the appropriateness of evidence regarding fingerprints linking the accused to the crime, and the adequacy of independent witness requirements during property seizure.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that unless a finding is clearly perverse or unjust, it will not interfere in concurrent verdicts of lower courts; procedural non-compliance does not invalidate the underlying evidence.

Result: The criminal revision petition is rejected and dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to the dismissal of criminal appeal (Para 1 , 6 , 7)
2. scope and limitations of revisional jurisdiction (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. questioning evidence admissibility and sufficiency (Para 8 , 13)
4. procedural law regarding search and seizure (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. evidence credible and consistent with convictions (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. sentencing considerations and leniency plea (Para 18 , 19)
7. efficacy of sentences concerning the nature of offenses (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
8. final dismissal of the revision petition (Para 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. The present revision petition seeks to challenge the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gangtok in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2024 (Bidhan Trikhatri & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim) dismissing the appeal of the revisionists.

2. Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) which is in pari materia to section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) contemplates the power of revision solely for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the “correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court ..... .” Therefore, the ambit and scope of the power of revision is not only clear from the provision itself but well explained in numerous judgments rendered by the constitutional courts. One such judgment as cited by Mr. Kazi Sangay Thupden, learned counsel for the revisionists is taken into consideration.

3. In Kishan Rao vs Shankargouda , (2018) 8 SCC 165 the Supreme Court considered two of its previous judgments which examined the scope of section 397/401 Cr.P.C. and the ground for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illathjathavedan Namboodiri , (1999) 2 SCC 452 the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised for correcting miscarriage of justice. However, the revisional powers cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Courts to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence had already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless “any glaring feature” is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise “tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.”

4. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke , (2015) 3 SCC 123 the Supreme Court held that unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the revisional court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. Unless the finding of the court is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.

5. Keeping in mind the well settled principles of law for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction let us now proceed to examine the present revision petition.

6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the revisionists for the offence under section 380/454 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by judgment dated 23.08.2022. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the revisionists by a judgment dated 12.12.2024. The judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate finding the revisionists guilty of the offences under section 380 and 454 of the IPC was upheld. However, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view