The revisional court cannot introduce additional documents not considered by the Magistrate, emphasizing the significance of judicial discretion and maintaining the integrity of original findings.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 390 and 482 - Jurisdiction of revisional court - The revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing application for additional documents not part of the original investigation, which the Magistrate had already considered before rejecting the protest petition - The proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction requires sufficient reasoning, and the revisional power is not meant to substitute appellate review (Paras 1, 6, 7).

(B) Judicial discretion - A Magistrate must apply independent scrutiny and may not be influenced by extraneous materials while deciding cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) - Document on revising powers is to prevent injustice and should not prolong litigation unnecessarily (Paras 2, 4).

Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged a revisional court's decision allowing additional documents and contended that the cognizance taken by the revisional court was not based solely on evidence from the investigation (Paras 1-3).

Findings of Court:
The court emphasized that an order from a Magistrate should not be set aside merely due to errors of phrasing if the conclusion is sound; furthermore, the revisional court's role is not to act as an appellate authority (Paras 4-6).

Issues: The main issues include the appropriate scope of the revisional court’s power concerning additional documents and the authority of the Magistrate in evaluating the protest petition (Paras 6-8).

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the revisional authority cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the Magistrate without clear justification; therefore, the prior findings made by the Magistrate were reaffirmed (Paras 6-7).

Result: The application for revisional relief was to be examined with focus on prior court findings and the proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Table of Content
1. limits of revisional court's jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. importance of section 164 statements in investigations. (Para 4 , 5)
3. procedural limitations on magistrate's power. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. issues around adequacy of evidence and protest petitions. (Para 9 , 10)
5. scheduled court sessions for further proceedings. (Para 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the applicant, argued at length by placing reliance on various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of the Allahabad High Court and by placing reliance he argued that the revisional court exceeded its power and jurisdiction by taking cognizance on additional documents, which were never been part of the investigation. He submits that the Magistrate concerned while rejecting the protest petition considered all the materials collected by the Investigating Officer while submitting the final report; however, the revisional court by allowing the application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. accepted the additional documents, which infact were not part of the investigation. He submits that the order allowing the application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. was challenged by the applicant in another C482 petition No. 652 of 2016, wherein, the liberty was given to the present applicant to raise all submissions before the court concerned and the relevancy of the documents cannot be examined at this stage since the revision is pending for adjudication.

2. In reference to the issue with regard to scope of revisional he further placed reliance of another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vikas Rathi vs. State of U.P. and Another , (2023) SCC Online SC 211 by giving reference of paragraph 15, which is quoted hereinunder:

“15. One of the arguments raised by learned counsel appearing for the parties was that in the case in hand, the High Court instead of appreciating the material placed on record by the parties in the form of evidence to find out as to whether a case was made out for summoning of the appellant as an additional accused, remitted the matter back to the trial court for consideration afresh. Remand in such a matter will only result in prolonging the litigation. The High Court only recorded that reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application were not sufficient. To avoid delay, it would have been proper exercise of power in case the High Court would have considered the material and opine as to whether a case was made out for summoning of additional accused. Whatever reasons have been recorded by the trial court in the order so passed, may not have been happily worded to the satisfaction of the High Court, but that error could have been corrected in exercise of revisional power.”

3. One more judgment has also been relied upon i.e. in the case of SanjaySinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and Others , (2015) 3 SCC 123 , paragraph 14 of which is quoted hereinbelow:

“14. In the case before us, the learned Magistrate went through the entire records of the case, not limiting to the report filed by the police and has passed a reasoned order holding that it is not a fit case to take cognizance for the purpose of issuing process to the appellant. 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 Page 16 16 aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The revisional court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to