DHIRENDRA CH DUTTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-petitioner was convicted under section 494 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Silchar by the judgment and order dated 20.12.76 passed in C.R. Case No. 1574 of 1972. An abortive appeal was filed which was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Silchar by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.781 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5 (1) of 1977. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) There is no dispute that the Opp. Party No.2 is the legally married wife of the accused petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 30.1.1967. It is alleged that in May, 1972 the accused-petitioner drove out the Opp. party No.2 and married one Labanga Bala Deb and accordingly a complaint petition was filed by the Opp. party No.2 i.e. the first wife of the accused petitioner.

(3.) The first point, which needs consideration as urged by Mr. Gopal, learned Public Prosecutor is that as both the learned lower courts have found the accused-petitioner guilty after proper appreciation of evidence on record, there is no scope for exercising revisional jurisdiction of this Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Apex Court, in Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal has urged that as this Court has entertained this petition, it has the power to examine the whole question of the correctness, propriety or legality of the sentence which necessarily involves examining the order of conviction itself from that view. In State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu and others,2. their Lordships of the Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled law that normally revisional jurisdiction of the High. Court is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice and the High Court while exercising this power cannot treat the matter as an appeal. So this revisional court can definitely examine the correctness, propriety or legality of the conviction and sentence but cannot treat the petition as an appeal and re-appreciate or re-apprise the evidence on record.