A two-judge bench of the apex court on 15.03.2019 in Harveer Singh & Anr. V. State of U.P. (CRIMINAL APPEAL No.505 Of 2019) allowed the appeal filed against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the revision ex parte filed by the appellants.
The bench was headed by:-
· JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
· JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
FACTS:
The appellants along with other two accused were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) by the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. However the Judicial Magistrate acquitted all the accused persons including the appellants from all the charges.
The State felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mathura where the Appellate Court while partly allowing the appeal upheld the order of the Judicial Magistrate in respect of other two accused and convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-
|
Offence u/S. |
RI for |
Fine sentence |
In default of payment of fine |
|
323, IPC |
1 year |
Rs. 500/- |
RI for 3 months |
|
324, IPC |
1 year |
Rs. 500/- |
RI for 3 months |
|
452, IPC |
1 year |
– |
– |
All these punishments were to run concurrently.
The appellants felt aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Court and filed criminal revision before the High Court of Allahabad. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the revision ex parte on account of non appearance of appellants at the time of hearing which resulted in filing of the appeal in Supreme Court by way of special leave by the appellants (accused).
ISSUES:
· Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’ revision?
OBSERVATIONS:
The court observed that:-
· The High Court failed to act in an expected manner to pass appropriate orders and it would have prevented the filing of appeal in Supreme Court.
· The High Court while dismissing the revision did not assign any reason due to which court cannot countenance disposal of the revision in that manner.
· The High Court should have applied its judicial mind to the factual and legal aspects arising in the case and then would have passed appropriate orders either for upholding the conviction or acquitting the appellants, as the case may be.
HELD:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. The case was remanded to the High Court for deciding the revision petition afresh on merits in accordance with law within six months.
For full judgement refer:
[embeddoc url=”https://www.supremecourt.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/22652/22652_2017_Judgement_15-Mar-2019.pdf” download=”all”]
