CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1138 of 2001 PETITIONER: MUNNA DEVI Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/11/2001 BENCH: M.B. Shah & R.P. Sethi JUDGMENT:
SETHI,J.
Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the framing of charges against him under Sections
376, 511, 451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, the respondent-accused
filed a revision petition in the High Court which was allowed vide the
order impugned in this appeal by quashing the charges framed against
him. The appellant-complainant-prosecutrix has filed this appeal
submitting that the impugned order is against the provisions of law as
the High Court could not prevent the holding of trial by sitting in
appeal against the order of framing of charge by sifting and weighing
the evidence recorded during the investigation.
We find substance in the submission made on behalf of the
appellant. The revision power under the Code of Criminal procedure
cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising
such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence
in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do.
Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there
is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or
the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information
Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their
entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been
charged. This Court in Kanti Bhadra Saha & Anr. v. State of West
Bengal [2000 (1) SCC 722] has held that there is no legal requirement
for the trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for framing
the charges.
In the instant case the learned Judge ignored the basic
principles which conferred the jurisdiction upon the High Court for
exercise of revisional powers. It was premature for the High Court to
say that the material placed before the trail court was insufficient
for framing the charge or that the statement of the prosecutrix herself
was not sufficient to proceed further against the accused-respondent.
As the impugned order has been passed against the settled
position of law, it is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The
order of framing the charge passed by the trial court against the
accused is upheld with directions to it to proceed with the trial of
the case and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law.
………………………J.
(M.B. SHAH)
………………………J.
(R.P. SETHI)
NOVEMBER 6, 2001
