Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Yalla Ram Naresh Naidu vs Yalla Rama Tulasi And Another on 4 March, 2014
Author: R.Kantha Rao
Bench: R.Kantha Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3476 OF 2011 04-03-2014 Yalla Ram Naresh Naidu .Petitioner Yalla Rama Tulasi and another. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.Durga Prasad Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri D.S.V.V.S.V.Prasad Counsel for Respondent No.2: Addl.Public Prosecutor. <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1.1983 Crl.L.J. NOC 77 2.1987 Law Suit (All) 379 THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3476 OF 2011 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-wife and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 22-03-2011 passed by the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fact Track Court, Narsapur, West Godavari District in Crl.M.P.No.51 of 2001 in Criminal Revision Petition No.55 of 2010.
The respondent wife filed Maintenance Case No.26 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol, seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per month. The petitioner husband contested the said maintenance case by filing a counter stating that the respondent is not his wife and she has sufficient means to maintain herself and she has been working in E-Seva, Palakol and earning Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousand, five hundred only) per month besides having a building worth Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) under Ex.B1 document.
Before the learned Magistrate, Pws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the respondent wife and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. Rws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the petitioner husband and Ex.B1 was marked. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence adduced on either side, granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand, five hundred only) per month from the date of filing the petition.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner husband filed a Criminal Revision Petition No.55 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Narsapur. In the said Criminal Revision Petition, he filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.51 of 2011 purportedly under Section 90(1) of Cr.P.C., to issue summons to the Manager, Axis Bank, Poolapalli to produce the account particulars of the respondent wife. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said petition by order dated 22-3-2011, holding that the Court of revision dealing with Criminal Revision Petition can only examine the legality, propriety or correctness of the order sought to be revised there is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure permitting additional evidence in revision petitions and therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable. Challenging the said order, the present revision petition is filed.
Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enables the appellate Court to take further evidence in the appeal, but the Code does not contain any provision enabling the Court of revision to take additional evidence or direct such evidence to be taken.
In Jaiprakash Vs. Rudra Prasad , relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitionerhusband, the learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows:-
There is no provision in the Code which prohibits the revisional Court from receiving additional evidence. Section 391 deals with powers of appellate Court. If the Court feels it necessary in order to do justice, and also for proper adjudication of the case, then nothing comes in the way of additional evidence being received. In the instant case, which related to maintenance of child reliance has been placed on the voters list, a public document, for the reason that the mother and the daughter were living in the same house.
According to the Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, if the Revisional Court thinks that it is necessary in order to do justice and also for proper adjudication of the case, additional evidence is necessary, it can take additional evidence.
In the instant case, both parties let in evidence in the Maintenance Case. The revision petitioner husband contended that the respondent is not his wife, but failed to prove the same and thereby, the learned Magistrate granted maintenance, holding that the respondent is the wife of the revision petitioner. Now, the revision petitioner in the revision petition filed by him before the learned Sessions Judge wants to establish that the respondent has some means, which would be revealed after her bank account is summoned to the Court and some bank official is examined in that connection.
The question therefore would be; whether such an application in the criminal revision petition can be allowed.
In this context, it is necessary to peruse the Judgment in ZIATOON Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER , wherein the learned Single Judge held as follows:-
I have heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the judgment of the Courts below. I am in agreement with the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the learned Sessions Judge could not have accepted any evidence at the stage of revision. In case of appeal there is specific provision in the Code of Criminal procedure that additional evidence can be accepted but in case of revision there is no such provision. The reason is obvious that the revisional Court has only to examine the illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment or the order sought to be revised. The Sessions Judge, therefore committed illegality in admitting evidence in revision.
The principle of stare-decesis does not apply in cases which are independent to each other. The proceedings under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure are quite independent than a criminal trial under Section 323 or 325 and also that standard of proof required for conviction in a criminal trial cannot be the same for decision of a case under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure which is more or less summary proceeding.
Even if it is considered that the Court of Revision dealing with a criminal revision case has power to receive additional evidence, it must be under exceptional circumstances and only when the Court thinks that refusal to receive such evidence would result in failure of justice. Even the provision for receiving additional evidence in a Criminal Appeal has to be sparingly used by the Courts. Therefore, receiving additional evidence in Criminal Revision Case can be said to be very exceptional. The proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., are intended for affording speedy remedy to the wife to obtain maintenance from the husband. If in revision cases, the additional evidence is allowed to be adduced in a routine manner, it would cause undue hardship to the parties seeking maintenance and ultimately it defeats the very purpose underlying Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In the instant case, I am of the considered view that disallowing the petition filed by the revision petitioner seeking to adduce additional evidence is quite appropriate and the said order cannot be interfered with in the present Criminal Petition.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 04-03-2014