Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.505 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.7004 of 2017)
Harveer Singh & Anr. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of U.P. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final
judgment and order dated 09.12.2016 passed by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHOK RAJ SINGH
Date: 2019.03.15
17:52:22 IST
Reason:
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
1
Criminal Revision No.2870 of 2009 whereby the
High Court dismissed the said revision ex parte filed
by the appellants herein.
3.
The appeal involves a short point as is clear
from the facts stated infra.
4. The appellants along with other two accused
were prosecuted for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 324, 452, 504 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)
in Criminal Case No. 247/1 of 2008 by the Judicial
Magistrate, Mathura. However, by order dated
01.05.2008, the Judicial Magistrate acquitted all
the accused persons including the appellants herein
from all the charges.
5. The State felt aggrieved and filed appeal being
Criminal Appeal No.81/2008 before the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Mathura. By order
dated 20.07.2009, the Appellate Court while partly
2
allowing the appeal upheld the order of the order of
the Judicial Magistrate in respect of other two
accused and convicted the appellants herein for the
offences punishable under Sections 323,324 and
452 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs 500/
each under Section 323 IPC, one year rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/ each under
Section 324 IPC and one year rigorous
imprisonment under Section 452 IPC. In the event
of not paying the fine, the appellants(accused) shall
further undergo three months each additional
imprisonment. All these punishments were to run
concurrently.
6. The appellants felt aggrieved by the order of
the Appellate Court filed criminal revision before the
High Court of Allahabad. At the time of hearing,
none appeared for the appellants. By impugned
3
order, the High Court dismissed the revision ex
parte , which has given rise to filing of the present
appeal by way of special leave by the
appellants(accused) in this Court.
7. So, the short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High
Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’
revision.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow the appeal and remand the
case to the High Court for deciding the revision
afresh on merits in accordance with law.
10. The impugned order reads as under :
“3. Having gone through the record, I do not
find any manifest error or otherwise
illegality, procedural or otherwise, so as to
justify interference in criminal revision.
4. Dismissed.”
4
11. In our view, as would be clear from the
perusal of the impugned order, the High Court while
dismissing the revision did not assign any reason.
We cannot countenance disposal of the revision in
this manner.
12. The least that was expected of was that the
High Court will apply its judicial mind to the factual
and legal aspects arising in the case and then pass
appropriate orders either for upholding the
conviction or acquitting the appellants, as the case
may be. We find that the High Court failed to do
this and hence interference is called for.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants, however,
made submissions on various issues arising in the
case. We do not wish to take note of them and nor
consider it proper to deal with them. The appellants
5
are free to raise their submissions before the High
Court.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned
order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High
Court for deciding the revision petition, out of which
this appeal arises, afresh on merits in accordance
with law.
15. We request the High Court to decide the
revision preferably within six months.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
....……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 15, 2019.
6