D. P. S. CHAUHAN, J.

( 1 ) IN criminal case No. 77 of 1982, the Special Judicial magistrate (Co-operative), Metropolitan Magistrate (illegible) Kanpur under order dated 19-11-1985 while convicting the applicant under Section 408, I. P. C. , sentenced him to 1 years R. I. together with a fine of Rs. 500/-and he while convicting other co-accused-Muzaffer Ali under Section 408/109 i. P. 0. sentenced him to 6 months R. I. together with a fine of Rs. 2000/ -. Against this conviction, applicant preferred appeal No. 244/85 which was dismissed by the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur on 23rd July, 1986. The present revision, which is outcome of the aforesaid conviction and sentence, was admitted by this Court on the question of sentence on 10-8-1986.

( 2 ) SRI P. N. Misra, Senior Advocate, appearing for the applicant, prayed for granting leave to address the Court on the merit of the matter, which prayer was opposed by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. His objection was that since the revision was admitted, after hearing learned counsel for the applicant only on the question of sentence, the applicant is left with no right to address the Court on the merit.

( 3 ) THE revision application, of course, was admitted on the question of sentence and obviously it was done so as this Court was not satisfied on merit. The object of admitting the revision on question of sentence might have been for giving rehabilitating treatment, or the sentence being on the excessive side.

( 4 ) THE remedy of revision, not being the remedy as of fight and as such no applicant, in a routine course, or as of right, can claim or be permitted to address the Court on the merit of the matter when his revision was admitted on the question of sentence. To permit such a practice would be contrary to the policy of the administration of justice as it would amount to reversal of the order passed at the admission stage and the same would lose its sanctity. Such an approach would be impermissible. Accordingly no applicant, whose revision application is admitted on the question of sentence, can as a matter of course or as of right address the court on merit of the matter at the time when the case is taken up for hearing.

( 5 ) HOWEVER, any such order admitting the revision on the question of sentence cannot curtail the power of the Court to interfere on the merit of the matter and it would always be open to the Court to grant leave, if satisfied regarding miscarriage of justice, to address the Court on merit of the matter as the very object of conferment of the revisionary jurisdiction on the Superior Courts is to give a kind of paternal supervisory jurisdiction to correct the miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of Law, irregularity of procedure and like infirmities. The power of the Court can neither be circumscribed nor can be allowed to be circumscribed. Where there has been no failure of justice the High Court will not interfere in revision even though there may have been any irregularity or impropriety in the proceedings but where there has been failure of justice it is not only the province of the High Court to interfere, but is its duty to do so.

( 6 ) THE facts, in brief, are that the applicant was the Chairman and one Muaaffar Ali was the Secretary of the Kanpur Canvas Vastu Adyogic utpadan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti), which is a Society registered under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Co-operative Societies Act) at the relevant time. The Samiti was one of the members of the District Co-operative bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) which advanced loan to the samiti after fixing its cash-credit limit. The Committee of Management of the Samiti, under its resolution, authorised the Chairman and the Secretary for the transaction of its business with the Bank On 29-6-1974, applicant took a sum of Rs. 1000/- as loan for the purpose of treatment of his wife and Rs 3000/- as ad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document