High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/266/2016dismissed

Montoo @ Ram Rattan v. State Of Punjab & ORS

2023-12-11Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain7 pages

!"#"$%

" % '()*

!"# $ %

& '

()*# $$+# *+

,! ""'% *- %

)

'- " . ""'%#

% % % ') / ')# ')

)

'- " !) %

$""'% "

- " $ '

-# '

1!) -

" %'

- '# ' !

0 )#

21 %"' "3%"'

% 1''

! ! ') 5-

'- " 6 1 "

7-- 8*# '

* %%

$ !

"# ! ! - ) " 6 " %%

1# " 6 """-

2# %! % 1''

! !# " 6

'') %

- "!"

" 69

') + "

7-- 8*

,! # 1! -- %

1''

! !# 1 % %% 1 "

'')# .: 6

;%# 9# -

% "

% 9 # 9# 9<<$# 4

:# '%

2# ' % - - " 1 "

')=- %

' " % %% -')#

%!- - !

0 )# 9 $-- ! #

' ""'

$""''

" %% ""%

% >%'

1!' ""- % !)

- '1 1-') ""% % ' "

: % !

'1 * %

% " 6

' "!"

% ! !

6 % ! ! ! >% - 1 "!"

' ""%

% "!"

- !' -

> # - #

' % % !

'1 '') - '

1''

% ) " % 1-') " 6

% 1!' >%- '

! '

?""%

- '1 < :

' % '

'') - ! -!

% @ 21 1 >%

' ) ' $"> , $- ..

$ / 01# .

*0"#,$ $

3)&3&+4, 0 "$", #5 $, 2/ # 6$/ 0%

"6. In a revision application filed by the de facto complainant against the acquittal order, the court's jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is limited. The law on the subject is well settled. Instead of referring to various judgments, we would only refer to few decisions rendered by this Court. In Akalu Ahir and Others v. Ramdeo Ram,(1973) 2 SCC 583 this Court has (in SCC pp.587-88, para 8) observed thus: A,! !1# 1)

# %

''1- %-

% 1 '

8! '

% ) %#

D BC

8! '

% 1-')# !

"% 1! " %D BC

8! ""'' % 1-') !'

% 'D BC

8! '

'* ') B!C '

% ""'' % D BC

8! '

%" -

% '

,! %- 1# !1# ') ''

%' ! %

' % ' ""') !'

>%"'

1! -!

% ')

! " @@# " C A6 # ""'

- % ! " %

'1 %

""'

) 1''

' -- %%'

''1 " %"'# -!

' ""

%- %

""'

! ' :

% " ') ' )

''-

*!# ! '

! % %%') ' -

%')

''1- '1 %

B7"! CE

: 7*68 01#) +

):# $"> !'

F< $ 62", $/1 2,"/8"$"#0 "$+ 3:;

)6.0 8 60 3 # %"

> !'

% '- !% ' %%

''1 A,! / 1!! - ')

-'-% -

% %

-'- - /

% "

""%

% 8!'

-# $ '

% !

% % -'- -

! -!

- ?""% 1 '

"# % %%'

'! !

% % -'- -

" ""'

$%'

A @

$) 0"## 1 -62 ) ,6 $/ 0#+ 3:3 )6.0 8 60& !'

! '

- >%

% '1

- :

* 0 16 $ 22 , , 1 / $ 85/"0"+

0"8"$ 29 9%

)<; !'

") >% -!

%%- %-

% '

"1 % / "1

""'' % % ""'' % ; ')# # 1 '

"""

?""% % 1 %%'

' ) -'-

-! %

1 '

!1 - %-

') '

% %%'

- '

,! %%'

')=- % ,! - # -!

'1 >%- '

%E .

!# $"> . = , 06># $#. !01# $"8 $

3 &):

"15.................When there is concurrent findings by the courts below, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is different from the appellate

jurisdiction. The High court will not normally interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, unless the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below is perverse or that the court has ignored the material evidence while arriving at that finding. As held in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452, ordinarily it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as by the Sessions court in appeal. When the courts below recorded the concurrent findings of fact, in our view, the High Court was not right in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below and the impugned order cannot be sustained." ,!

# *- %

% %% %

% *"- 1

% -)G - "

''- ''' #

>%- '

- ) -'-

/ ')# " "

! 85 0

+ & *

.0 Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No