Revisional Power Cannot Be Exercised In Casual & Mechanical Manner; Can Be Exercised To Correct Manifest Error Of Law: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court reiterated that revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner and it can be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected.
The Court reiterated thus in a Criminal Petition preferred against the Order of the Senior Civil Judge by which the discharge application was rejected.
A Single Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh elucidated, “Whether the charge has to be framed or not is required to be made on the basis of the record of the case, including the document and oral hearing of the accused. The scope of framing of charge or refusal of discharge also clarified in the judgment that revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner and it can be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected.”
The Bench referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu and Others (2023) 6 SCC 768 in which it was held that Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) contemplates discharge of the accused by the Court of Session under Section 227 of CrPC and the Trial Judge is required to discharge the accused if the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 arises when the Magistrate consider the charge against the accused to be groundless.
Senior Advocate Sandesh J. Chouta appeared for the Petitioner while AAG Devadas appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background -
As per the Respondent’s case, in the complaint he had made an allegation that the Petitioner along with other accused persons indulged in creation of documents. Based on the complaint, the police registered an FIR and the main allegation was that one Siddegowda who was the father of accused No.1 and grandfather of the complainant died in 1996. However, accused No.1, father of the complainant, after the death of his father by impersonation executed a relinquishment deed in favour of accused No.2, who was the father of the Petitioner in respect of a land. Accused No.2 based on the said relinquishment deed got the revenue records mutated in the name of the Petitioner.
The police based on the complaint allegations, investigated the matter, and filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Petitioner had filed a case along with his father and other accused persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings and the High Court had rejected the same. The Petitioner then filed an Application under Section 239 of CrPC seeking for his discharge on the ground of alibi contending that the Petitioner was out of India and working as Engineer at Hamburg in Germany since 2005. It was contended that between 2006 to 2008, he never visited India and the Trial Judge committed an error in dismissing the same without giving credence to the said contention.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “Having considered the scope of revision and also the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, the Trial Court has taken note of the material on record, particularly there is a document of relinquishment deed and also subsequently the properties are transferred in the name of this petitioner and also he has taken the plea of alibi and plea of alibi is a matter of trial and on the ground of alibi, he cannot be discharged and the defence cannot be considered at the stage of considering the material on record.”
The Court, therefore, noted that there is no error committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the Application filed for discharge and that the High Court has already taken note of the material for filing of the charge sheet against him in the earlier Petition and rejected the same filed under Section 482 of CrPC.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Petition and refused to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court.
Cause Title- Jayaprakash M.R. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sandesh J. Chouta and Advocate G.S. Prasanna Kumar.
Respondents: AAG Devadas, AGA Gopalkrishna Soodi, and Advocate Sree Harsha A.K.
