LAKSHMINARASAPPA Vs. MEKALA VENKATAPPAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to reverse the order of the District Magistrate of Cuddapah setting aside an order of discharge passed by the 2nd Class Magistrate of Kadiri, and directing a further inquiry by the 1 Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Cuddapah on the sole ground that the Sub-Magistrate has misappreciated the evidence and arrived at a wrong conclusion on the facts.

(2.) The complaint was one of theft of a document, punishable under Section 380, Indian Indian Penal Code. The 2nd Class Magistrate examined 8 witnesses and filed 6 exhibits for the prosecution and 9 exhibits on behalf of the defence, and discharged the accused as, in his own words, "the very existence of a document of the kind said to have been lost is doubtful and the case bears distinct marks of having been trumped up, as the witnesses are all untrustworthy." The District Magistrate, on the other hand, has "no doubt that the document existed," and he also saw no reason to consider that the witnesses have been giving false evidence, and accordingly directed further inquiry by another magistrate.

(3.) The petitioner's Counsel refers to Criminal Revision Case No. 501 of 1900, where this Court reversed an order of the District Magistrate directing a further enquiry on the ground of misappreciation of evidence. He also relies upon Joy Gopal Bannerjee V/s. The Emperor (1906) 11 C.W.N. 173, Queen Empress V/s. Erram Reddi (1885) I.L.R. 8 M. 296 and Rash Behari Lal Mandal and Ors. V/s. The Emperor (1907) 12 C.W.N. 117. Under the Codes of 1871 and 1892 it has been held that this Court will not exercise its power of revision on the ground that the lower Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence the reason being that it is for the Court called upon to determine whether the person charged is guilty or not, to consider and weigh the evidence, and any error as to the probative force and effect is not open to correction on revision, but only on appeal - 5 M.H.C.R., App. X, and In the matter of Aurokiam (1878) I.L.R. 2 M. 38." The same view has been accepted under the Codes of 1882 and 1898 in the case of Queen-Empress V/s. Lakshmi Nayakan (1896) I.L.R. 19 M. 238 and Criminal Revision Case No. 343 of 1900. - Weir, page 255. The practice, so far as I am aware, has been in accordance with this view. While it is quite clear to me that the High Court is entitled to deal with any case on facts, it has been held that only in cases of defective investigation or failure to consider important evidence, or consideration of evidence from a wrong point of view, or contravention of any provision of law and of conviction upon facts which will not support the same, will the revisional powers of the Court be exercised. It is clear, therefore, assuming that the District Magistrate is right in his estimation of the evidence, that this Court would not have interfered with the order of discharge on the grounds stated by him. If the 2nd Class Magistrate had proceeded to frame a charge against the accused, and tried and acquitted him, the High Court alone could have interfered with the order of acquittal or convicted him on appeal by the local Government.