Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shaikh Mukhtar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1359 OF 2024
SAIYYAD KALEEM @ KAYYUM
VS.
STATE OF MADHA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Basant Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ravendra Shukla, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent-State.
RESERVED ON 05.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON 13.03.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This revision having been heard and reserved for order, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:-
ORDER
This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner- Saiyyad Kaleem @ Kayyum under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in Cr.A.No.13/2021 (Shaikh Mukhtar & Anr. Vs. State of M.P.), whereby the judgment dated 05.02.2021 passed by JMFC, Burhanpur in RCT No.4338/2014 was partially modified and Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 13-03-2025 16:40:47 2 petitioner was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 4 read with section 9 (1) of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 but petitioner's appeal with respect to offence under Section 6 read with section 9 (2) of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and Section 11(a) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was dismissed and petitioner's conviction of aforesaid offence was maintained and affirmed by the Appellate Court and he was sentenced to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation and with fine of Rs.50/- with default stipulation.
2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of present revision are that on 23.12.2014 at about 18 hours near Bodarli crematorium, petitioner along with co-accused persons were found transporting nine bulls in an injured condition for slaughtering and for transporting to Maharashtra. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and co-accused persons under Section 4, 6, 9 M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and Section 11 (d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
3. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 05.02.2021 passed in RCT No.4338/2014 (Shaikh Mukhtar & Anr. Vs. State of M.P.), after evaluation of evidence found the petitioner to have committed offence under Section 4 read with section 9 and Sections 6 read with section 9 of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 as well Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 13-03-2025 16:40:47 3 as Section 11 (d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and sentenced them as aforesaid. Against the above judgment, petitioner filed an appeal and learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 13.2.2024 passed in Cr.A.No.13/2021 (Shaikh Mukhtar & Anr. Vs. State of M.P.) partly allowed the petitioner's appeal and acquitted him with respect to offence under Section 4 read with section 9 (1) of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 but convicted the petitioner under Sections 6 read with section 9(2) of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and sentenced him for 6 months with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. Appellate Court has also affirmed the conviction with respect to offence under Section 11
(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after referring to trial Court judgment, especially, para 20 submits that learned trial Court wrongly convicted and sentenced the petitioner and Appellate Court has erred in affirming the same. Only allegation against the petitioner is of transporting cattle. As per medical evidence, no injuries have been found on the person of cattle i.e bulls seized from the petitioner. In medical report, only it is mentioned that they were found in weak condition. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Findings recorded by the Appellate Court and trial Court are incorrect and illegal and it is not established from evidence on record that Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 13-03-2025 16:40:47 4 petitioner was transporting cattle for slaughtering. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 did not support the evidence and prosecution story. Learned Appellate Court did not take into consideration the evidence mentioned in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Hence, petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the judgment passed by the Appellate Court as well as trial Court be set-aside and petitioner be acquitted for the offences, charged with.
5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent State has opposed the revision petition and prays for dismissal of the same.
6. This Court have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
Scope of Revision u/s 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C.:-
7. Before analyzing the facts of the case on merits, it would be appropriate to examine the scope & ambit of criminal revision/powers of court u/s 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. In this connection, this Court would like to refer decisions of Hon'ble Apex court in State Vs. R. Soundirarasu , AIR 2022 SC 4218, State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 & Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649 (3-Judge Bench).
Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 13-03-2025 16:40:47 5
8. In Duli Chand (supra), Hon'ble Apex court has held as under:-
"5.........The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re- appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse "
9. In R. Soundirarasu (supra), Hon'ble Apex court has held as under:-
"75. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 631: (AIR 2002 SC 107: 2002 cri LJ 225 (SC)), this Court held as under:-
"3.....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."Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 13-03-2025 16:40:47 6
76. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure."
10. In Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"21. In embarking upon the minutest re- examination of the whole evidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of the self- restraint that he was required to exercise in a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. On behalf of the accused, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice Sabharwal) is a party, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 1997 decided on 9.3.2004 [Ram Briksh v. Ambika Yadav]. That was the case in which the High Court interfered in revision because material evidence was overlooked by the courts below.
22.The Revisional Court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 410 Cr.P.C. Section 401 Cr.P.C. is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of Appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 13-03-2025 16:40:47 7 power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. Section 397 Cr.P.C. confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court."
It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 Cr.P.C. conferring powers of Appellate Court on the Revisional Court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 Cr.P.C., read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power."
11. Recently also, Hon'ble Apex Court in Malkeet Singh Gill Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2022) 8 SCC 204, after discussing the scope and ambit of interference in revision by High Court has held as under:-
"10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short "CrPC") vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 13-03-2025 16:40:47 8 himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings.
11. This Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam [Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1015] , while dealing with the scope of reappreciation of evidence by higher Court in criminal revision, observed in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment as under : (SCC pp. 333-34) "9. So far as Issue 1 is concerned i.e. as to whether the appellant got married with Smt Ranju Sarma, is a pure question of fact. All the three courts below have given concurrent finding regarding the factum of marriage and its validity. It has been held to be a valid marriage. It is a settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of reappreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse.
The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered.
Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence.
10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 13-03-2025 16:40:47 9 findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice.
'9. ... The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure.' (Vide Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad [Sriniwas Ram Kumar v.
Mahabir Prasad, 1951 SCC 136], SCC p. 139, para 9)
11. Thus, it is evident from the above that this Court being the fourth court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the courts below as the said courts have exercised their discretion in good faith giving due weight to relevant material and without being swayed by any irrelevant material. Even if two views are possible on the question of fact, we, being the fourth court, should not interfere even though we may exercise discretion differently had the case come before us initially. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact so far as the issue of bigamy is concerned nor the quantum of punishment on this count is required to be interfered with."
12. Similarly, A Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey (2021) 14 SCC 683, has held in para 7 as under:-
7. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court(or Sessions Court) under Section 397 CrPC, is limited to the extent of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 13-03-2025 16:40:47 10 finding, sentence or order passed by an inferior Court. The Revisional Court is entitled to look into the regularity of any proceeding before an inferior Court. As reiterated by this Court in a number of case, the purpose of this revisional power is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.
FINDINGS:-
13. Now in the light of above legal parameters, facts of the case would be examined.
14. So far as recovery of 05 bulls from possession of petitioner is concerned, testimonies of prosecution witnesses Sunil, Sawan, Rameshwar Prasad and Laxminarayan, including suggestions given to aforesaid witnesses in their cross-examinations, petitioner's examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and seizure memo (Ex.P/1), FIR (Ex.P/5), Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/6) and Superdginama (Ex.P/8) clearly establishes recovery of five bulls from present petitioner.
15. Perusal of judgments passed by learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court reveals that they have taken into consideration the evidence available on record and has examined and discussed it in right perspective. It cannot be said that learned trial Court as well as appellate Court did not take into consideration any material evidence or did not examine and consider it properly as per law. Hence, in this Court's opinion, learned trial Court as Appellate Court has rightly held Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 13-03-2025 16:40:47 11 that recovery of 5 bulls from the possession of petitioner is clearly established.
16. Further, testimony of Dr. Hemant Shah (PW-4) and his examination report (Ex.P/4) shows that scratch marks were found on the person of cattle examined by the witness. It is also evident that they were aged from 6 to 10 years and they were weak and all of them were not fit for agricultural purposes.
17. Further, perusal of evidence available on record, both oral as well as documentary, reveals that in the instant case, petitioner has not filed any receipt with respect to purchase of aforesaid cattle and petitioner has not disclosed the name of farmers to whom the cattle were to be supplied. Petitioner has not examined any such farmer to support the defence that petitioner has purchased cattle on behalf of any such farmer.
18. Further, Section 13-A of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 provides as under:-
"13A. Burden of proof on accused- Where any person is prosecuted for an offence under the provisions of this Act, the burden of proof that he had not committed the offence under the provisions of this Act, shall be on him, if the prosecution is in a Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 13-03-2025 16:40:47 12 position to produce the prima facie evidence against him at the first instance."
19. Hence, in this Court's opinion, it cannot be said that learned Appellate Court and Trial Court have not taken into consideration or overlooked any material/relevant evidence on record while convicting and sentencing the petitioner. It cannot also be said that learned Appellate Court and Trial Court have taken into consideration any material evidence which should not have been taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any material illegality or perversity in the findings of learned Appellate Court and Trial Court with respect to petitioner's conviction u/s 6 read with Section 9(2) of MP Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and Section 11(a) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Hence, in this Court's opinion, there is no illegality and perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts. Learned Appellate Court and Trial Court have not committed any illegality in convicting petitioner under Sections 6 read with Section 9(2) of MP Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and Section 11(a) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
20. So far as sentence is concerned, learned First Appellate Court has convicted and sentenced petitioner under Sections 6 read with Section 9(2) of MP Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 with RI 6 months and fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation and Section Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 13-03-2025 16:40:47 13 11(a) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 with fine of Rs. 50/- with default stipulation.
21. Perusal of Section 9(2) of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, reveals that Appellate Court has sentenced appellant with the minimum sentence as prescribed under Section 9(2) of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam. Hence, no interference is required in the same.
22. Resultantly, no ground for interference in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court is made out. Hence, this revision is dismissed.
23. A copy of this order be sent forthwith to learned Appellate Court, Burhanpur and concerned jail for information & necessary action.
24. Present revision petition is disposed off accordingly.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE Hashmi Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 13-03-2025 16:40:47