ARAVIND @ VAIDYAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional power conferred under Sec. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the High Court is a special jurisdiction to correct the miscarriage of justice arising from the erroneous orders, which may arise from the misconception of law, irregularity of procedure or order and misreading of evidence. This revisional power is discretionary one and one cannot claim it as a vested right, when there is vested right in an appeal. The appellant has a statutory right in an appeal to demand adjudication upon a question of law or question of fact or of both. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, the petitioner has no such right, but he has the right to bring the case to the notice of the court and it is for the court to interfere in exceptional cases when it feels that substantial injustice has been done.

(2.) The revision petitioners were charge sheeted in C.C.485 of 2002 of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mananthavady for having committed offence punishable under Sec. 143, 147, 353, 506(i) r/w with 149 IPC. The charge is that on 4.9.2002 at 6.30 p.m., accused 1 to 4 and five others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, they prevented the Advocate Commissioner appointed in O.S.98 of 2002 of the Munsiff Court, Mananthavady from inspecting the property and threatened him, the second accused snatched the letter pad and the court order and ran away, thereby committed the offence.

(3.) During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to 6 and marked Ext.P1 to P5. The learned Magistrate found the revision petitioners guilty under Sec. 143, 147, 353, 506(i) read with 149 Penal Code and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months under Sec. 143 IPC, simple imprisonment for six months under Sec. 147 IPC, to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 each under Sec. 353 Penal Code with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month and simple imprisonment for six months under Sec. 506(i) IPC. Against that, they preferred Criminal appeal No.90 of 2004 in the Additional Sessions Court, Kalpetta (Ad hoc II) in which it was observed that A3 committed an offence punishable under Sec. 353 Penal Code and also observed that offence under Sec. 147 Penal Code will not lie against him. The appellate court also reduced the punishment imposed under Sec. 143 Penal Code to simple imprisonment for one month and reduced sentence under Sec. 506(i) Penal Code to simple imprisonment for two months. The sentence on the second accused was also reduced to simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 1000.00 under Sec. 353 Penal Code with a default clause of simple imprisonment for one month and again observed that A1, A2 and A3 were acquitted under Sec. 353 IPC. Being aggrieved by that judgment, accused preferred this revision petition.