Section 482 cannot substitute a second revision absent perversity or serious miscarriage of justice.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 31.10.2018 by which the District and Sessions Judge, Darbhanga dismissed Criminal Revision No. 377 of 2018, thereby affirming the Magistrate’s order dated 21.07.2018 in Bahadurpur (Pator) P.S. Case No. 168 of 2009, G.R. No. 1495 of 2009, Trial No. 1264 of 2018.

The Magistrate had rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking examination of the Investigating Officer, doctor, informant and other witnesses.

The petitioner contended that only two witnesses had been examined and that the additional witnesses were essential for a just decision of the case.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that it effectively amounted to a second revision barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.

The revisional court observed that the prosecution had failed to adduce evidence despite repeated opportunities and that, since the offences were non-cognizable, the complainant was required to remain vigilant in producing evidence.

It further noted that the informant had not examined herself despite several opportunities in a case instituted in 2009.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against a revisional order dismissing the challenge to rejection of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., notwithstanding the bar against a second revision under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.

Whether the rejection of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking examination of the Investigating Officer, doctor, informant and other witnesses amounted to perversity, serious miscarriage of justice, or abuse of the process of court warranting interference.

Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the criminal court to summon, examine, recall or re-examine a witness where such evidence is essential for a just decision of the case.

Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. bars a second revision by the same party.

However, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may exceptionally be exercised despite that bar where there is serious miscarriage of justice, abuse of the process of court, non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions, or a manifest error by the revisional court.

Relying on Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, (2005) 2 SCC 571, and Rajathi v. C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326, the Court held that Section 482 cannot ordinarily be used as a substitute for a second revision, but may be invoked to correct a perverse or legally erroneous revisional order.

The Court accepted that the petition could be examined under Section 482 Cr.P.C., but found no exceptional circumstance justifying interference with the revisional order.

The case concerned non-cognizable offences and had remained pending since 2009.

Despite repeated opportunities, the informant had not entered the witness box, and the prosecution had failed to adduce evidence.

In these circumstances, the Court treated the delay as attributable to the informant’s lack of diligence rather than as a denial of a fair opportunity.

The revisional court had considered the Magistrate’s reasoned order and the opportunities already granted; therefore, its refusal to direct further examination of witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was not perverse and did not cause serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process.

The challenge to the orders rejecting the Section 311 Cr.P.C. application was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.

A copy of the judgment was directed to be transmitted to the trial court.