Deepak Alias Dippi v. State Of Haryana And Another
!"
SUBHAS MEHLA
! "
# $%&
'
'& $
( ))) SUBHAS MEHLA # " %*++(,-*(.(/
*
#
# #00 .( (.(,
0, 0( (.(/
! ! 1& %**--,+*(.(/2 $ !
#345 /. 0, .( (.(0
0+670+87-(-7-(+7-(,7-.97-.(7+/( /.,4 $
: 5$ ;# 2 00 .( (.(,
#
#
:
%*++(,(*(.(/
2& *09
2#
#
2& *09
2& *09
&!<
<& 2
! #&$ .+ .0 (.(-!
=&$ #!
!
!
-08% %
&##
$%& '$('
&
$ & 345 /. ., .( (.(0
0+6 -.(
-.9 -(- -(+ -(, +/( /.,
0+84 $
: 5$ #! # ( &
34
$!
*
5 ( # 4
$ >
*
(? !
&
5 0(,, '
5$ #! ;
!
$!
&
&$!
(9 & # @ 0, ( (.(0 !
, -.79 ..
$ #
# & '
5$ #! $
$# #
#"&&
&! <
;% $$ #
:
#!&#
#
# ; A& #
! #
$ #
A& $
;
# #
&! # # # # # # # 6*0.!
& 1& #
&! <
;% &
< $
< &
#
$
#
<&
$'
5$ #! % #
B & $ $ !
!
$
!
1& $ $ !
! !
# 2
$ !
# !
< $ !
!
& <& ; !
< & <&
C
&
<& $$ D
$ !
&
# & <&
# &
< $
< &
# $
# ! ! # # # &$
# # ! #! &!& #
$ $ ! $
%
#
!$
#
*
#
# & <&
# $ <&
!
&
& #& # @ $
34
$
## @
$
4
$ $$ A& & # 1& # '&& & $
.+ ./ (.(0
.( .9 (.(0
09-% % $ < "&#
; % "&#& $
< "&#&
0+6 -(- -(+ -(, +/( /., -.9 -.(
0+84
09-% % .( .9 (.(0 ! #
&&!
!
$
& $ - &
&
2#
C*0 ! % $ $
&
$ 34 ;
-08% % &##
$%& )(*'
$ * & @
=&$ #!
#&$ .+ .0 (.(- $$ #
! !
+ 1
#&$
.+ .0 (.(-
$
#
!
! E
(*&! &$
!&##
-08% %!
# 34 ##
#E
!
!&
34 #
$ ! $
7
$ E
7
$ C0
#&!
#
& $ ! $
# ##!E
# #2#
& &# & <&E
#
&! !=4% #!
0- .0 (.((
!<
!
!
&! E
!
&!
!
& &!#
!
%
$
&!#
&
-08% % 2
# $ <& % !
# & <
7
-08 % %
# #
&!#
% !
!
D!
&#% '+(,,- ./0*12 3'3,)4 $/5'%'/()3*,+2# 6 7 #&$ .+ .0 (.(-
-08% %
*
&##
5 (
! / @
(
!&!#
&E
<&
# ##!
##!
E
$%& )(*'
&
$$ #
# ,
!
& # !
$ # ##
! ; #&$ ; &$ #
( #
34!&
!
!&
C $
C*0!
7
#
34A& & @ & 34 #
$ !
2#
C*0
#
!&
(
<& !
!& !
& # 34
$ $$
(
$ # $#
$
!
5 (
# #
A&
#
$ & 4 &
#
( <&
# ##!
& '+(,,- ./0*1 3'3,)4 $/5'%#6 7
! &#% & F
!
"
#
!
!
!!
$
%
!
%
!
%
&'
(
!
!
%
!
(
% ! ) (
*
%
!
'
!
!
!
(
!!
%
(!
(
%
! ! (
!
!
! %
! !
%
!!
!
!
'
!
% '
(
!
( !
!
!
<&
$%
&
# 4 !2
#
$
<&
$ # $ <& ; $
$
#
$ #
$
$
# $ <& 2 $ & $%
* &
$ #
; ;&
<&
!
<&
! 2 <& & In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, 1999 (2) SCC 452, the Supreme Court held as follows:
In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily,
therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has 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. 0.
;
# !
&
&
=&$ <& $ #&$ ; &##
$
& ! & & # ! & & # !&
&
##
&
&##
& 00 C$ &#
D!
&#%
$
&##
(* & !
$!& & 2 <& &
#! $
#
(SUBHAS MEHLA) mamta JUDGE C $7
G75
C !
G75