Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.26 seconds)Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 439 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
D. Stephens vs Nosibolla on 2 March, 1951
In D. Stephens v. Nosibolla [1951] SCR 284 it was held by this
Court that the revisional jurisdiction conferred by Section 439 of the
Code ought not to be exercised lightly when it is invoked by a private
complainant against an order of acquittal which could have been
appealed against by the Government under Section 417. "It could be
exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public
justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality,
or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice." In other words,
the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked merely
because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or
misappreciated the evidence on record.
Logendranath Jha & Others vs Shri Polailal Biswas on 24 May, 1951
In Logendranath Jha and Ors.
v. Polailal Biswas [195l] S.C.R. 676 the High Court, at the instance of
private complainant, set aside the order of acquittal passed by the
Sessions Court and directed that the accused be retried. This Court
held that the provision contained in Section 439(4) of the Code cannot
be construed to mean that in dealing with a revision petition by a
private party against an order of acquittal the High Court could, in the
absence of any error on a point of law, re-appraise the evidence and
reverse the findings of facts, provided only it stops short of finding
the accused guilty and passing sentence on him. The order of re-trial
based on a re-appraisal of evidence was characterized by this Court as
a formal compliance with the requirements of Section 439(4).
K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 July, 1962
In K.
Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
MANU/SC/0133/1962the Court while emphasising that the revisional
jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court in exceptional
cases only when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or a
manifest error on a point of law resulting in a flagrant miscarriage of
justice observed that it was not possible to lay down the criteria for
determining such exceptional cases which would cover all
contingencies. The Court, however, indicated, in order to illustrate, a
few of the cases in which the revisional jurisdiction could properly be
used. An 'acquittal by a court lacking jurisdiction or excluding
evidence which was admissible or relying on inadmissible evidence or
where material evidence has been overlooked are some of the cases
indicated by this Court as justifying the exercise of revisional powers.
Mahendra Pratap Singh vs Sarju Singh & Anr on 20 November, 1967
State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors on 27 August, 2004
18. As regards the other contention of the counsel that the death
of the deceased Sanjay has no nexus with the accident has no
merits. Merely because even after the accident the victim was
Crl. Rev. No. 631/2001 Page 23 of 27
speaking in the hospital does not mean that he did not die a little
later due to the accident. It has come in the testimony of PW-3, Dr.
S.K. Khanna that as per the post mortem conducted by him, the
deceased Sanjay died due to accidental death and the said
testimony remains unrebutted and further strengthens prosecution
case. While dealing with offence under Section 304-A IPC what
should be considered is that proximate cause of the death should
be accident and, which should not be confused with proximity of
time. Therefore, the judgment in Anand Singh Neggi's case
(Supra), Kurban Singh's case (Supra) and Krishna's case
(Supra) are of no assistance to the petitioner.