LABHU RAM AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Labhu Ram, Sohanlal and Birbal were convicted for offence under Sec. 457 Penal Code and sentenced to two years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Similar sentence was passed against each of them for offence under Sec. 380 IPC. This judgment and sentence was passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nohar on 27.7.1988. An appeal was preferred before learned Sessions Judge which was dismissed on 9.7.1991 and the conviction and sentences were confirmed. Aggrieved by this judgment of confirmation the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and have gone through the record.

(3.) The settled law as laid down in State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana lllath Jathavedan Namboodiri etc., JT 1999(1) SC page 456 , is that in its revisional jurisdiction the High Court can call for the examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentences or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out salient features of this case to the effect that cement bags were not found in possession of the petitioners, that Juharmal who is alleged to have purchased the cement, is just like an accomplice, that there was no evidence that the petitioners might have been seen entering into the place where cement was stored, they are not named by the driver of the vehicle nor there is identification of the cement that it belonged to Rajasthan Canal Project. Therefore, according to him in this case miscarriage of justice has taken place and the petitioners have been erroneously convicted.