Madhya Pradesh HC: Revisional power can be exercised only when there exists a manifest illegality in the order or there is a grave miscarriage of justice

Now, the scope of revisional jurisdiction is also required to be ruminated. On this aspect, In Kaptan Singh v. State of M.P., (1997) 6 SCC 185 : AIR 1997 SC 2485, (1997) CCR 109 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a large number of its earlier judgments, and held that revisional power can be exercised only when “there exists a manifest illegality in the order or there is a grave miscarriage of justice”.{Para 13}

14. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

“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 as 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.

15. In State of A.P. v. Rajagopala Rao, (2000) 10 SCC 338, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

“The High Court in exercise of its revisional power has upset the concurrent findings of the Courts below without in any way considering the evidence on the record and without indicating as to in what manner the courts below had erred in coming to the conclusion which they had arrived at. The judgment of the High Court contains no reasons whatsoever which would indicate as to why the revision filed by the respondent was allowed. In a sense, it is a non-speaking judgment.”

16. In upshot of the aforesaid prepositions, this Court while using its revisional jurisdiction, has to examine that whether there is a manifest illegality in the judgment of the learned Courts below or there is miscarriage of justice.

 In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh{ Indore Bench}

(Before Prem Narayan Singh, J.)

Rekha Soni  Vs Gopal and Others 

Criminal Revision No. 1274 of 2020

Decided on October 17, 2023, 

Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine MP 3772.

Print Page

Whether decree can be reversed on ground that appellate court has failed to frame points?

 This Court in the case of Vatsalabai wd/o

Vishwanath Nakhate & Others Vs. Madhaorao Laxmanrao

Thakare & Another, 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 980 has held that failure

of the first Appellate Court to formulate the questions, as

required under Order XLI, Rule 31 of CPC, would in deed

constitute a substantial question of law. However, when the

appeal is heard on merits and the High Court is required to

examine the question of reversal of the decree, on any such

grounds, the Court has to examine as to whether, the failure of

the first Appellate Court to formulate the question, as required

under Order XLI, Rule 31 of CPC, has resulted into miscarriage

of justice. This Court has further found that in a situation of the

present nature, the provisions of Section 99 of CPC cannot be

lost sight of. Section 99 of CPC inter alia provides that no decree

shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be

remanded in appeal on account of any error, not affecting the

merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court. Now the

question whether the failure to frame such points or proper

points, has resulted into any miscarriage of justice or has

affected the merits of the case, would depend upon facts and

circumstances of each case. In the present case, I do not find

that there is any miscarriage of justice, which has resulted,

affecting the merits of the case, within the meaning of Section 99

of CPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

SECOND APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2017

Shablo Govind Gaude  Vs  Kashinath Govind Gaude 

Coram : C.V. BHADANG, J.

Date : 14 th JUNE 2018

Print Page

Whether prosecution can be quashed on ground that investigation was not valid?

 As the foregoing discussion shows the investigation in the present case by the Deputy Superintendent of Police cannot be considered to be in any way unauthorised or contrary to law. In this connection it may not be out of place also to point out that the function of investigation is merely to collect evidence and any irregularity or even illegality in the course of collection of evidence can scarcely be considered by itself to affect the legality of the trial by an otherwise competent court of the offence so investigated. In H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi [MANU/SC/0049/1954 : AIR 1955 SC 196], it was held that an illegality committed in the course of investigation does not affect the competence and jurisdiction of the court for trial and where cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination of the invalidity of the preceding investigation does not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. When any breach of the mandatory provisions relating to investigation is brought to the notice of the court at an early stage of the trial the Court will have to consider the nature and extent of the violation and pass appropriate orders for such reinvestigation as may be called for, wholly or partly, and by such officer as it considers appropriate with reference to the requirements of Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1439 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6444 of 2016)

Decided On: 18.08.2017

R.A.H. Siguran Vs. Shankare Gowda and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit, JJ.
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 5141

Print Page

When not giving opportunity to defendant to adduce evidence will amount to miscarriage of justice?

After 13 years of the institution of suit, the evidence

of the plaintiffs-respondents was closed on 6.1.2003 and the case was adjourned to

21.2.2003 for the evidence of the defendant-appellant. As no witness was produced on

that day, the trial Court closed the evidence of the defendant-appellant. The suit was

decreed on 31.3.2003. When the matter was taken to the High Court in first appeal,

the same was dismissed summarily.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our view, in the facts

and circumstances of the case, the trial Court was not justified in closing the evidence

of the defendant and passing a decree in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents only on

the ground that the High Court had

required it to expedite disposal of the suit. The trial Court should have, after taking

note of the fact that the plaintiffs had taken long time to adduce their evidence, given

further opportunity to the defendant-appellant to adduce evidence and then decided

the matter. Its failure to do so has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

While dismissing the first appeal, the High Court observed that in-spite of

sufficient opportunity having been given, the appellant did not adduce evidence in

support of its case. This must be treated as clearly erroneous because it is an

undisputed fact that only one opportunity was given to defendant-appellant to adduce

evidence.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned orders

are set aside and the trial Court is directed to decide the suit afresh in accordance

with law after giving opportunity to defendant-appellant to adduce evidence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1328 OF 2009

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.5313 of 2004)

Mahanagarpalika. V Sureshbhai Bhanubhai Thakkar & Anr.

Dated:February 27, 2009.

Citation:(2016) 15 SCC 675.

Print Page

Whether investigation U/SC and ST Atrocities Act can be set aside even if there is no prejudice to accused?

 Having given a thoughtful consideration, to the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant - State of Bihar, we are of the view, that the legal position as has been declared by this Court, is in complete consonance and conformity with the postulation contained in Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This being the position, we have no hesitation in holding, that the second determination rendered by the High Court, to the extent that the investigation carried out by a police officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, after 31.03.1995 and prior to the issuance of the notification dated 03.06.2002 (on 09.08.2008), would stand vitiated, has necessarily to be set aside.

In our view, the above finding could have been returned only if, the concerned Court expressed its satisfaction, that the investigation carried out, by a subordinate police officer/official, who had no authority to investigate the matter, had caused prejudice to the accused, leading to miscarriage of justice. Since no such finding has been recorded, and since it has also not been established before this Court, that the accused had suffered such prejudice, it is not possible for us, to sustain the above conclusion, of the High Court. The same is accordingly hereby set aside.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

State of Bihar and Others etc. Vs. Anil Kumar and Others etc.

[Civil Appeal Nos. 4397-4400 of 2017 arising from SLP (C) Nos. 27524-27 of 2011]

[Civil Appeal No. 4401 of 2017 arising from SLP (C) No.7317 of 2017]

CORAM:Jagdish Singh KheharJ,Dr.

 D.Y. Chandrachud J, Sanjay Kishan Kaul J,

Dated:March 23, 2017.

Citation:AIR 2017 SC 2716

Print Page