Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
STATE OF KERALA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, WESTERN INDIA PLYWOODS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PUTTUMANA ILLATH JATHAVEDAN NAMBOODIRI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/02/1999
BENCH:
G.B.Pattanaik, S. Rajendra babu
JUDGMENT:
PATTANAIK,J.
The State of Kerala is in appeal against the Judgment
dated 4.2.94 of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Revision
Petition No. 521 of 1988. By the impugned Judgment, the
High Court in revision, has interfered with the conviction
and sentence passed against the accused respondent of the
offences under Sections 408, 468 and 477A of the Indian
Penal Code.
The accused-respondent was an employee of Western
India Plywoods and was head of the purchase section. In
course of his duties, he was supposed to send empty barrels
to the suppliers for getting the chemical Formal-dehyde.
The prosecution alleged that in the process of sending such
empty barrels to the suppliers for the purpose of getting
refilled Formal-dehyde between the period 10.10.74 to
25.6.75, the accused-respondent manipulated the official
records and documents and sold 660 empty barrels, the value
of which was Rs.69,300/- and himself appropriated the same,
thereby committed offence under Section 408, 468 and 477A of
the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined as many as
24 witnesses and exhibited 96 documents. On a thorough
consideration of the evidence on record, both oral and
documentary, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Cannanore, came to the conclusion that the accused while
working as head of the purchase section of the Western India
Plywoods, took the empty barrels concerned from the factory
and diverted the same to a destination of his own choice and
disposed of the same according to his own convenience and
mis-appropriated the entire sale proceeds thereof. The
Magistrate also recorded a clear finding that the accused
falsified the documents Exhibits P-2(a), P-2(b) and P-3(a),
the gate passes by furnishing false information in the same
and also forged the railway receipts by affixing the seal of
the Western India Plywoods and putting his signature on the
railway receipts on behalf of the company and thereby the
charges against the accused have been established beyond
reasonable doubt. For his conviction under Sections 408 and
468, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for five months each and to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/- each, in default S.I. for one month each under
each count and for offence under Section 477A, he was
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, S.I. for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
two months. Sentences were directed to run concurrently.
On appeal being carried, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Tellicherry, re-appraised the entire evidence, oral
and documentary and affirmed the conclusion of the learned
Magistrate and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by
the Magistrate. On a revision being filed by the accused,
the High Court by the impugned Judgment interfered with the
conviction and sentence and came to hold that the
prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond
reasonable doubt.
Mr. Prakash, the learned counsel, appearing for the
State of Kerala contended that the High Court exceeded its
revisional jurisdiction in interfering with an order of
conviction and sentence passed thereunder by re-appreciating
the evidence on record and, therefore, the impugned Judgment
is wholly unsustainable in law. The learned counsel also
contended that the High Court even has not considered
several items of evidence which had been considered by the
Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal and
on such score also the impugned Judgment is unsustainable.
Mr. M.N.Rao, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing
for the accused-respondent on the other hand contended that
the case being one of no evidence, the High Court was
justified in exercising its revisional jurisdiction and in
interfering with the conviction and sentence passed against
the accused. The learned counsel also contended that in the
absence of any entrustment being established, the charges
under Section 408 could not have held to have been
established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and
therefore, the High Court was justified in interfering with
the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate
which had been upheld in appeal by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge.
Having examined the impugned Judgment of the High
Court and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to
come to the conclusion that in the case in hand, the High
Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. 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 tentamount to gross
miscarriage of justice. On scrutinizing the impugned
Judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid stand point,
we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the
High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the
conviction of the respondent by re-appreciating the oral
evidence. The High Court also committed further error in
not examining several items of evidence relied upon by the
Additional Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction
of the respondent. In this view of the matter the impugned
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
Judgment of the High Court is wholly unsustainable in law
and we, accordingly set aside the same. The conviction and
sentence of the respondent as passed by the Magistrate and
affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal is
confirmed. This appeal is allowed. Bail bonds furnished
stand cancelled. The respondent must surrender to serve the
sentence. In view of the order in this appeal, no further
order is necessary in SLP(Criminal) No. 1466/94.