Harveer Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.505 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.7004 of 2017)

Harveer Singh & Anr. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of U.P. ….Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final

Signature Not Verified judgment and order dated 09.12.2016 passed by Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2019.03.15 17:52:22 IST Reason: the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in

1 Criminal Revision No.2870 of 2009 whereby the

High Court dismissed the said revision ex parte filed

by the appellants herein.

3. The appeal involves a short point as is clear

from the facts stated infra.

4. 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 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)

in Criminal Case No. 247/1 of 2008 by the Judicial

Magistrate, Mathura. However, by order dated

01.05.2008, the Judicial Magistrate acquitted all

the accused persons including the appellants herein

from all the charges.

5. The State felt aggrieved and filed appeal being

Criminal Appeal No.81/2008 before the Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Mathura. By order

dated 20.07.2009, the Appellate Court while partly

2 allowing the appeal upheld the order of the order of

the Judicial Magistrate in respect of other two

accused and convicted the appellants herein for the

offences punishable under Sections 323,324 and

452 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs 500/­

each under Section 323 IPC, one year rigorous

imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/­ each under

Section 324 IPC and one year rigorous

imprisonment under Section 452 IPC. In the event

of not paying the fine, the appellants(accused) shall

further undergo three months each additional

imprisonment. All these punishments were to run

concurrently.

6. The appellants felt aggrieved by the order of

the Appellate Court filed criminal revision before the

High Court of Allahabad. At the time of hearing,

none appeared for the appellants. By impugned

3 order, the High Court dismissed the revision ex

parte, which has given rise to filing of the present

appeal by way of special leave by the

appellants(accused) in this Court.

7. So, the short question, which arises for

consideration in this appeal, is whether the High

Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’

revision.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to allow the appeal and remand the

case to the High Court for deciding the revision

afresh on merits in accordance with law.

10. The impugned order reads as under :

“3. Having gone through the record, I do not find any manifest error or otherwise illegality, procedural or otherwise, so as to justify interference in criminal revision.

4. Dismissed.”

4

11. In our view, as would be clear from the

perusal of the impugned order, the High Court while

dismissing the revision did not assign any reason.

We cannot countenance disposal of the revision in

this manner.

12. The least that was expected of was that the

High Court will apply its judicial mind to the factual

and legal aspects arising in the case and then pass

appropriate orders either for upholding the

conviction or acquitting the appellants, as the case

may be. We find that the High Court failed to do

this and hence interference is called for.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants, however,

made submissions on various issues arising in the

case. We do not wish to take note of them and nor

consider it proper to deal with them. The appellants

5 are free to raise their submissions before the High

Court.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal

succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned

order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High

Court for deciding the revision petition, out of which

this appeal arises, afresh on merits in accordance

with law.

15. We request the High Court to decide the

revision preferably within six months.

………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

....……..................................J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi;

March 15, 2019.

6