ASHOK Vs. VANAMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Akola, who has set aside the order of the learned trial Magistrate acquitting the applicants-accused of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and remanding the matter to him for fresh hearing according to law after impleading the father of the accused No. 1 as co-accused in the proceedings. The learned counsel for the applicants has urged before me that the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge is very limited. It is well settled that in the revisional jurisdiction, an order of acquittal cannot be converted into one of conviction. It is further well settled that it is not open to the revisional Court to reappreciate the evidence on record and take its own view even though the view taken by the learned trial court is a reasonable and possible view. In fact, in the appeal against acquittal itself this restriction is observed by the appellate Court.

(2.) IN the case of Bansi Lal and Ors. v. Laxman Singh (AIR 1986 SC 1721), the Supreme Court has observed that it is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial Court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of the acquittal and direct a retrial of the acquitted accused. It is further observed that from the very nature of this power it should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the trial Court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a retrial of the accused.

(3.) PERUSAL of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge shows that he has reappreciated the evidence on record and since in his view the view taken by the learned trial Court is wrong, he has directed retrial of the accused. In view of the limited scope of his revisional jurisdiction, the impugned order is clearly illegal and erroneous and is liable to be set aside.