Vuturi Pradeep Kumar v. State Of A.P., Rep By Its Public Prosecutor
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRL.R.C.No.358 OF 2004 This revision petition is filed under Sections 397 a d 401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 20.11.2003 in C.C.No.275 of 1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class, Metpally, Karimnagar District acquitting respondents 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC after full-fledged trial finding them not guilty. 2.
The main ground urged before this Court is that when civil suit is pending the complaint is not maintainable under law. Placed reliance on Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha v Narayana Singh and another1, which was considered by the trial Court, has no application to the present facts of the case. The other ground is that the finding recorded by the trial Court is in view of pendency of civil suit for specific performance the criminal complaint is not maintainable which is contrary to the settled law and prayed to set aside the acquittal passed by the trial Court.
3.
During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal and requested to set aside the acquittal and convict the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC considering the material available on record. No representation for the respondents 2 and 3.
4.
Before deciding the controversy between the parties, I would like to discuss the scope of jurisdiction of the Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. The scope of revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C is a kind of paternal and supervisory jurisdiction on the High Court over all other criminal Courts established in the State in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from a misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect or failure to take proper precaution or apparent harshness of treatment which has on one hand resulted in some injury to the due 1 AIR 1999 SC 1480
maintenance of law an order or on the other hand, in some undeserved hardship to individuals. The revisional power conferred on the High Court by this section is discretionary power, has to be exercised in the aid of justice and this Court will not exercise jurisdiction under this Section if there has been no failure of justice even though the proceedings of the lower Court suffer from irregularity or impropriety. When the Court finds that an order of conviction has been based on no legal evidence or the findings are illegal, unreasonable or perverse, the revisional Court can correct the wrong or justice done to the accused by setting aside the order of conviction.
5.
But here, in this case, a case of acquittal and whereas the trial Court acquitted the accused, it is open to the High Court under revision to set aside the order of acquittal even at the instance of the proper party though the State may not have thought fit to appeal. But this jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional case when there is some defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on the point of law and consequently, there has been flagrant miscarriage of justice. The Apex Court in K.
Chinnaswamy Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh2 held that it is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in the opinion of the Court be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.
retrial, when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. Further, the Court may however indicate some cases of this kind, which would in the opinion of the Court justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision.
These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law.
These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; and in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal. 6.
From the law declared by the Apex Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy's case referred supra after pre-amended Cr.P.C the Court cannot interfere normally in case of revisions filed against the acquittal except in the exceptional circumstances 7.
In later judgement of the Apex Court in Venkatesan v Rani and another3 considered the scope of Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. and held that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Courts while examining an order of acquittal is extremely narrow and ought to be exercised only in 3 (2013)14 SCC 207
cases where trial court had committed a manifest error of law or procedure or had overlooked and ignored relevant and material evidence thereby causing miscarriage of justice. Re-appreciation of evidence is an exercise that the High Court must refrain from while examining an order of acquittal in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. If within the limited parameters, interference of the High Court is justified the only course of action that can be adopted is to order a re-trial after setting aside the acquittal. As the language of Section 401 of the Code makes it amply clear there is no power vested in the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
8.
If these principles laid down by the Apex Court are applied to the facts of the present case, this Court cannot convert acquittal into conviction in view of bar contained un Sub-Section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. unless the case would fall within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy's case referred supra. But the contention before this Court is that the trial Court did not consider the judgment in Nageshwar Prasad Singh's case referred supra the Apex Court while considering the scope of private complaint filed under Sections 415 and 420 IPC held that complainants failure to perform their part of making full payments and suit for specific performance was already pending before the Civil Court, the liability, if any, arising by breach of contract is civil in nature and not criminal, thereby, the criminal proceedings liable to be quashed with compensatory costs. Thus, this principle has no application to the present facts of the case to record conviction of the accused converting acquittal into a conviction. 9.
In fact, this judgment was considered in para 12 of the trial Court and after considering the law laid down by the Apex Court and other Courts in various decisions, the trial Court find the accused not guilty while concluding that when a suit for specific performance was pending,
the complaint is not maintainable. But such finding need not be examined at this stage in view of bar conferred on this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C and the bar under Sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C applying the principle laid down in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy and Nageshwar Prasad Singh cases referred supra, no ground to convert the acquittal into conviction passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the revision petition is devoid of merits warranting interference of this Court by exercising power under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C and it is liable to be dismissd.
10.
Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal revision case, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY J Date: 04.08.2017 kvrm