State of A.P. Vs. Pituhuk Sreeinvanasa Rao
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 555 of 1999)
Petitioner: State of A.P.
Respondent: Pituhuk Sreeinvanasa Rao
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 555 of 1999)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jun 03, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Sections 397, 401 – Respondent held guilty under Section 304A
IPC – Appeal filed before Ses-sions Court – Sessions Court affirming
the conviction and sentence – Revision filed in High Court – Single
Judge allowing the appeal – No evi-dence on record referred to by the High Court – Whether Single Judge right in finding the reasoning of the courts below as arbitrary without even referring to the evidence on record. Held : No. Revisional jurisdiction is basically supervisory in nature. Single Judge ought to have given reasons for dissenting from the concurrent findings of fact by lower courts.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. No one is appearing for the Respondent in spite of service of notice to show cause why the impugned judgment of the High Court shall not be set aside and the matter remitted back to the High Court for disposal of the revision afresh in accordance with law.
3. In this case Respondent was convicted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. He filed an appeal before the sessions court wherein the conviction and sentence were confirmed and appeal was dis-misses. But when Respondent preferred a Criminal Revision before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh a learned Single Judge (N.Y. Nanumanthappa, J.) heard the revision and disposed it of in the following words:
“Heard both sides.
In the absence of establishment of rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner by the prosecution the Courts below committed mistake in convicting and sentencing the petitioner as aforesaid. Hence the reasoning adopted by the Courts below is arbitrary and unacceptable. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision case is allowed and the convictions and sentences ordered by the Courts below against the petitioner are set aside. The fine amount, if paid shall be refunded to the petitioner.”
4. We have extracted above the very words of the learned Single Judge as nothing more is needed to highlight the hollowness of the order, for, it was without any reference to the evidence on record or the findings entered by the trial court and the Ap-pellate Court regarding the evidence. If a revision is to be disposed of by upsetting the concurrent findings of two courts below in the aforesaid fashion it would amount to abdication of the judicial function of the High Court. We are a little per-turbed that it has happened like that in certain other cases disposed of by the learned Single Judge. We make the said ob-servation not with a pleasing mind but we hope that this observa-tion would reach the learned Judge so as to help him to remind himself of the need to give reasons for dissenting from the findings concurrently made by the fact finding courts. It is redundant to remind that revisional jurisdiction is basically supervisory in nature.
5. In the result, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the registrar of the High Court to board the Revision in hearing list, so that, it can be disposed of afresh in accordance with law.
6. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
1. Leave granted.
2. No one is appearing for the Respondent in spite of service of notice to show cause why the impugned judgment of the High Court shall not be set aside and the matter remitted back to the High Court for disposal of the revision afresh in accordance with law.
3. In this case Respondent was convicted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. He filed an appeal before the sessions court wherein the conviction and sentence were confirmed and appeal was dis-misses. But when Respondent preferred a Criminal Revision before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh a learned Single Judge (N.Y. Nanumanthappa, J.) heard the revision and disposed it of in the following words:
“Heard both sides.
In the absence of establishment of rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner by the prosecution the Courts below committed mistake in convicting and sentencing the petitioner as aforesaid. Hence the reasoning adopted by the Courts below is arbitrary and unacceptable. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision case is allowed and the convictions and sentences ordered by the Courts below against the petitioner are set aside. The fine amount, if paid shall be refunded to the petitioner.”
4. We have extracted above the very words of the learned Single Judge as nothing more is needed to highlight the hollowness of the order, for, it was without any reference to the evidence on record or the findings entered by the trial court and the Ap-pellate Court regarding the evidence. If a revision is to be disposed of by upsetting the concurrent findings of two courts below in the aforesaid fashion it would amount to abdication of the judicial function of the High Court. We are a little per-turbed that it has happened like that in certain other cases disposed of by the learned Single Judge. We make the said ob-servation not with a pleasing mind but we hope that this observa-tion would reach the learned Judge so as to help him to remind himself of the need to give reasons for dissenting from the findings concurrently made by the fact finding courts. It is redundant to remind that revisional jurisdiction is basically supervisory in nature.
5. In the result, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the registrar of the High Court to board the Revision in hearing list, so that, it can be disposed of afresh in accordance with law.
6. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
