MANZOOR HUSAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur recommending that the conviction and sentence of Manzoor Hasan under certain sections of the Motor Vehicles Act be set aside.

(2.) MANZOOR Hasan, according to the prosecution story, was found driving a motor -lorry with no spare wheel or stepney and with no bell fixed to the motor -lorry. In support of the prosecution story there was the evidence of Sri Babu Ram Sharma, the Enforcement Squad Inspector of five districts with headquarters at Gorakhpur, who checked this vehicle in the district of Deoria on the road on a particular day. In defence the accused produced two witnesses to state that there was the spare wheel and there was also the bell. The learned Magistrate believed the Inspector and did not accept the statement of the two defence witnesses on the ground that these defence witnesses gave contradictory statements on viral points. The learned Session Judge has, however, been of the view that the conviction of the driver on the uncorroborated testimony of the Inspector is bad in law, because it is a matter of common knowledge that these drivers of public vehicles are harassed by Inspectors for ulterior motives; and that if the drivers or the owners of public vehicles are able to please the Inspectors, then no amount of irregularities would come to light and if they are not able to please him, then irregularities are manufactured for the purposes of prosecution." A sweeping condemnation of acts performed in the discharge of their duties by inspectors of Enforcement Squads without proper material on the record to support the same cannot at all be justified. The power to report under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an overriding power which should be exercised only if the circumstances of the case really call for it. A case should not be reported merely because the Sessions Judge is of a different opinion as to the value of the evidence adduced before the Magistrate, or the ground that a conviction could not be supported on the merits, unless the circumstances are such as to leave no reasonable doubt of the matter. A reference should not ordinarily be made, except on matters involving questions of law, and even in such cases only if the error of law is of such a character that it is necessary in the interests of justice to (sic) for the interference of a higher authority. As a general rule the High Court will not, in revision, interfere with a finding of fact. It would be futile for the Legislature to grant a right of appeal in some cases and to withhold that right in others, if the High Court under the guise of revision were to allow conclusions of fact based on evidence to be canvassed and attacked on the footing of an appeal. A court of revision will not, therefore, decide between two conflicting sets of witnesses, or interfere merely because the trial court has taken a different view of the evidence, or go into the weight or sufficiency of the evidence, or question a finding as to the credibility of a witness, or substitute, where two views are possible, its own view of the evidence for that of the trial court. In fit cases the power of the High Court under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure is not limited to questions of law alone. In Special and exceptional circumstances it is entitled to go into questions of fact and do justice, though that power should be sparingly exercised. Where an occasion arises for going into the facts of the case, the High Court will not interfere as readily as it would if it was a matter of appeal and not revision. The distinction is that in disposing of a criminal appeal the court will interfere unless it is satisfied as to the guilt of the accused, while in revision the Court will not interfere unless the conscience of the court is (sic) to such an extent as to compel the Court to expressly say that the applicant ought not to have been convicted on the evidence.