IN RE: ESAKKI THEVAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by the five accused in a criminal case, who were originally convicted by the learned District Magistrate of Tirunelveli Under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 326 of the I.P.O. and sentenced to several periods of imprisonment,. This matter was taken up in appeal to the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli, who consi- dered the facts of evidence in his appellate judgment and confirmed the convictions and sentences.

(2.) At the outset itself, when these proceedings in revision were argued, the limits of the propriety1 of interference in criminal revision by the High Court in a case of this kind, where there are concurrent findings of fact by two courts below, were canvassed, as I felt that it was essential that this should be clarified. The matter has now been argued at some length by learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, and also by the learned Public Prosecutor, with reference to the available authorities, both of the Madras High Court, other High Courts and the Supreme Court. It is not necessary for the purpose of the present judgment to make an exhaustive review of the case-law cited before me. But certain of the decisions have necessarily to be referred to, at the outset, itself, so that the broad landmarks of the applicable principle may be illustrated.

(3.) In a very early Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in National Bank of India Ltd( V. Kothandarama Chetti, 21 Ind Cas 129 (Mad), the proposition was laid down that the High Court possesses plenary powers of interference even in criminal revision, even upon a question of fact, though, of course, such power should be exercised with circumspection, and only where interference is called for in the broadest interests of justice. In a subsequent decision of this Court in K. Y. Ramaswami; Naick v. Rangasami Chettiar A.I.R. 1937 Mad 988, King J. observed that, even in criminal revision, where tine courts below had not approached the case either with a clear appreciation of the issues involved, or clear understanding of the principles of criminal law, interference by the court of revision would be just and appropriate.