HARVEER SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. on 15 March 2019

1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.[2019] 2 S.C.R. 1014

[2019] 2 S.C.R. 1014

A

HARVEER SINGH & ANR.

v.

STATE OF U.P.

(Criminal Appeal No. 505 of 2019)

B

MARCH 15, 2019

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ANDDINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]

Revision:

CRevision petition – Ex parte dismissal of the criminal revision,by the High Court – Interference with – Held: High Court dismissedthe revision without assigning any reason – Such disposal cannotbe countenanced – High Court should have applied its judicialmind to the factual and legal aspects in the case and then passedappropriate orders either for upholding or setting aside theDconviction but the same was not done – Matter remanded to theHigh Court for deciding the revision petition afresh.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: The High Court while dismissing the revision didnot assign any reason. The disposal of the revision in this mannerEcannot be countenanced. The least that was expected of was thatthe High Court would apply its judicial mind to the factual andlegal aspects arising in the case and then pass appropriate orderseither for upholding the conviction or acquitting the appellants,as the case may be. The High Court failed to do so. The impugnedForder is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court fordeciding the revision petition afresh on merits in accordance withlaw. [Paras 11,12,14][1016-C, D-F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo.505 of 2019.GFrom the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2016 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Revision No.2870 of 2009.

D.S. Kauntae, Keshav Ranjan, Advs. for the Appellants.

Vishnu Shankar Jain, Adv. for the Respondent.

H

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and orderdated 09.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabadin Criminal Revision No.2870 of 2009 whereby the High Court dismissedthe said revision ex parte filed by the appellants herein.

3. The appeal involves a short point as is clear from the factsstated infra.

4. The appellants along with other two accused were prosecutedfor the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504 and 506 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) inCriminal Case No. 247/1 of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.However, by order dated 01.05.2008, the Judicial Magistrate acquittedall the accused persons including the appellants herein from all the charges.

5. The State felt aggrieved and filed appeal being Criminal AppealNo.81/2008 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mathura.By order dated 20.07.2009, the Appellate Court while partly allowingthe appeal upheld the order of the order of the Judicial Magistrate inrespect of other two accused and convicted the appellants herein for theoffences punishable under Sections 323,324 and 452 IPC and sentencedthem to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs 500/- each under Section 323 IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment with fineof Rs.500/- each under Section 324 IPC and one year rigorousimprisonment under Section 452 IPC. In the event of not paying thefine, the appellants(accused) shall further undergo three months eachadditional imprisonment. All these punishments were to run concurrently.

6. The appellants felt aggrieved by the order of the AppellateCourt filed criminal revision before the High Court of Allahabad. At thetime of hearing, none appeared for the appellants. By impugned order,the High Court dismissed the revision ex parte, which has given rise tofiling of the present appeal by way of special leave by theappellants(accused) in this Court.

7. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in thisappeal, is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing theappellants’ revision.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and remandthe case to the High Court for deciding the revision afresh on merits inaccordance with law.

B

10. The impugned order reads as under :

“3. Having gone through the record, I do not find anymanifest error or otherwise illegality, procedural orotherwise, so as to justify interference in criminal revision.

4. Dismissed.”C

11. In our view, as would be clear from the perusal of the impugnedorder, the High Court while dismissing the revision did not assign anyreason. We cannot countenance disposal of the revision in this manner.

12. The least that was expected of was that the High Court willDapply its judicial mind to the factual and legal aspects arising in the caseand then pass appropriate orders either for upholding the conviction oracquitting the appellants, as the case may be. We find that the HighCourt failed to do this and hence interference is called for.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, madeEsubmissions on various issues arising in the case. We do not wish to takenote of them and nor consider it proper to deal with them. The appellantsare 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 isFremanded to the High Court for deciding the revision petition, out ofwhich this appeal arises, afresh on merits in accordance with law.

15. We request the High Court to decide the revision preferablywithin six months.

GNidhi Jain

Appeal allowed and matter remanded to High Court.

H