Allahabad HC: Revisional court can not convert finding of acquittal into conviction

The scope of criminal revision is very limited as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. Revisional Jurisdiction can be invoked where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Another well accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The revisional court has simply to confine to the legality and propriety of the findings and as to whether the subordinate court acted within it's jurisdiction. A revisional court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate and impose and substitute its own findings. Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. confer only limited power on revisional court to the extent of satisfying the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like appellate court for other purposes including the recording of new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence. The High Court in its revisional powers could not have interfered with the findings of facts recorded by the lower court only because the High Court could have arrived at a different or another conclusion. Findings of acquittal recorded by subordinate court cannot be converted into conviction by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s. 401(3) Cr.P.C. {Para 6}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)

Criminal Revision Defective No. 8 of 2010

Decided On: 22.09.2022

Ambika Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Citation: MANU/UP/3201/2022.

Print Page

What is the duty of appellate or revisional court if it is setting aside findings of facts recorded by trial court?

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us, and with justification, that the judgment and order of, the High Court does not disclose application of mind to the evidence on record, or to the findings recorded by the Trial Court, which were sought to be set aside by the impugned judgment and order. The finding of the High Court is as vague as it can be and it is not possible to cull out the reasons which persuaded the learned Judge to set aside the findings recorded by the Trial Court. We have earlier quoted the relevant part of the judgment which justifies the criticism of the learned counsel. It is well settled that the Appellate or Revisional Court while setting aside the findings recorded by the Court below must notice those findings, and if the Appellate or Revisional Court comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are untenable, record its reasons for coming to the said conclusion. Where the findings are findings of fact it must discuss the evidence on record which justify the reversal of the findings recorded by the Court below. This is particularly so when findings recorded by the Trial Court are sought to be set aside by an Appellate or Revisional Court. One cannot take exception to a judgment merely on the ground of its brevity, but if the judgment appears to be cryptic and conclusions are reached without even referring to the evidence on record or noticing the findings of the Trial Court, the party aggrieved is entitled to ask for setting aside of such a judgment.

{Para 11}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1059 of 2003 

Decided On: 26.08.2003

Deb Narayan Halder Vs. Anushree Halder

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N. Santosh Hegde and B.P. Singh, JJ.

Author: B.P. Singh, J.

Citation:  AIR 2003 SC 3174,MANU/SC/0629/2003.

Print Page

Whether findings of facts given by court or judgment on concession is binding as precedent?

 So far as the first question is concerned, Article 141 of the Constitution unequivocally indicates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. The aforesaid Article empowers the Supreme Court to declare the law. It is, therefore, an essential function of the Court to interpret a legislation. The statements of the Court on matters other than law like facts may have no binding force as the facts of two cases may not be similar. But what is binding is the ratio of the decision and not any finding of facts. It is the principle found out upon a reading of a judgment as a whole, in the light of the questions before the Court that forms the ratio and not any particular word or sentence. To determine whether a decision has 'declared law' it cannot be said to be a law when a point is disposed of on concession and what is binding is the principle underlying a decision. A judgment of the Court has to be read in the context of questions which arose for consideration in the case in which the judgment was delivered. An 'obiter dictum' as distinguished from a ratio decidendi is an observation by Court on a legal question suggested in a case before it but not arising in such manner as to require a decision. Such an obiter may not have a binding precedent as the observation was unnecessary for the decision pronounced, but even though an obiter may not have a bind effect as a precedent, but it cannot be denied that it is of considerable weight. The law which will be binding under Article 141 would, therefore, extend to all observations of points raised and decided by the Court in a given case. So far as constitutional matters are concerned, it is a practice of the Court not to make any pronouncement on points not directly raised for its decision. The decision in a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be assailed on the ground that certain aspects were not considered or the relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Court (see AIR 1970 SC 1002 and AIR 1973 SC 794). 

Supreme Court of India

Dir. Of Settlements, A.P. & Ors vs M.R. Apparao & Anr on 20 March, 2002

Print Page