Munna Devi vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr
- SCC(2001) 9 SCC 631
- AIRAIR 2002 SC 107
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A High Court exercising revisional powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot appreciate evidence by sifting and weighing it as trial and appellate courts do. Revisional jurisdiction is confined to cases where there is a legal bar to the continuance of proceedings or where the facts as stated in the First Information Report, taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence charged. A trial court's order framing charges need not be lengthy or elaborate with detailed reasoning; it need only comply with the statutory requirement to frame charges where it finds a prima facie case. A High Court exercising revisional power cannot prematurely assess whether the material placed before the trial court is insufficient for framing charges or whether witness statements are inadequate to proceed, as such determinations are the province of the trial court at the stage of framing charges and ultimately of the trial court or appellate court on the merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Aggrieved by the framing of charges against him under Sections 376, 511, 451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, the respondent-accused filed a revision petition in the High Court which was allowed vide the order impugned in this appeal by quashing the charges framed against him. The appellant-complainant-prosecutrix has filed this appeal submitting that the impugned order is against the provisions of law as the High Court could not prevent the holding of trial by sitting in appeal against the order of framing of charge by sifting and weighing the evidence recorded during the investigation.
We find substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. The revision power under the Code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. This Court in Kanti Bhadra Saha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal [2000 (1) SCC 722] has held that there is no legal requirement for the trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges.
In the instant case the learned Judge ignored the basic principles which conferred the jurisdiction upon the High Court for exercise of revisional powers. It was premature for the High Court to say that the material placed before the trail court was insufficient for framing the charge or that the statement of the prosecutrix herself was not sufficient to proceed further against the accused-respondent.
As the impugned order has been passed against the settled position of law, it is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The order of framing the charge passed by the trial court against the accused is upheld with directions to it to proceed with the trial of the case and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law.
...........................J. (M.B. SHAH)
...........................J. (R.P. SETHI)
NOVEMBER 6, 2001
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free