HARVEER SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P.

1014                SUPREME[2019]
                            COURT   REPORTS
                                  2 S.C.R. 1014              [2019] 2 S.C.R.


 A                         HARVEER SINGH & ANR.
                                         v.
                                 STATE OF U.P.
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 505 of 2019)
 B                              MARCH 15, 2019
                     [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
                       DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
             Revision:
 C           Revision petition – Ex parte dismissal of the criminal revision,
       by the High Court – Interference with – Held: High Court dismissed
       the revision without assigning any reason – Such disposal cannot
       be countenanced – High Court should have applied its judicial
       mind to the factual and legal aspects in the case and then passed
       appropriate orders either for upholding or setting aside the
 D     conviction but the same was not done – Matter remanded to the
       High Court for deciding the revision petition afresh.
             Allowing the appeal, the Court
              HELD: The High Court while dismissing the revision did
       not assign any reason. The disposal of the revision in this manner
 E     cannot be countenanced. The least that was expected of was that
       the High Court would apply its judicial mind to the factual and
       legal aspects arising in the case and then pass appropriate orders
       either for upholding the conviction or acquitting the appellants,
       as the case may be. The High Court failed to do so. The impugned
 F     order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for
       deciding the revision petition afresh on merits in accordance with
       law. [Paras 11,12,14][1016-C, D-F]
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
       No.505 of 2019.
 G           From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2016 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Revision No.2870 of 2009.
             D.S. Kauntae, Keshav Ranjan, Advs. for the Appellants.
             Vishnu Shankar Jain, Adv. for the Respondent.
 H
                                       1014
           HARVEER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P.                                1015


      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                A
      ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
dated 09.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
in Criminal Revision No.2870 of 2009 whereby the High Court dismissed
the said revision ex parte filed by the appellants herein.                      B

       3. The appeal involves a short point as is clear from the facts
stated infra.
        4. The appellants along with other two accused were prosecuted
for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504 and 506 of        C
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) in
Criminal Case No. 247/1 of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.
However, by order dated 01.05.2008, the Judicial Magistrate acquitted
all the accused persons including the appellants herein from all the charges.
       5. The State felt aggrieved and filed appeal being Criminal Appeal       D
No.81/2008 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mathura.
By order dated 20.07.2009, the Appellate Court while partly allowing
the appeal upheld the order of the order of the Judicial Magistrate in
respect of other two accused and convicted the appellants herein for the
offences punishable under Sections 323,324 and 452 IPC and sentenced
them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs 500/         E
- each under Section 323 IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment with fine
of Rs.500/- each under Section 324 IPC and one year rigorous
imprisonment under Section 452 IPC. In the event of not paying the
fine, the appellants(accused) shall further undergo three months each
additional imprisonment. All these punishments were to run concurrently.        F
      6. The appellants felt aggrieved by the order of the Appellate
Court filed criminal revision before the High Court of Allahabad. At the
time of hearing, none appeared for the appellants. By impugned order,
the High Court dismissed the revision ex parte, which has given rise to
filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the
                                                                                G
appellants(accused) in this Court.
      7. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in this
appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the
appellants’ revision.
                                                                                H
1016                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 2 S.C.R.


 A             8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
              9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
       of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and remand
       the case to the High Court for deciding the revision afresh on merits in
       accordance with law.
 B             10. The impugned order reads as under :
               “3. Having gone through the record, I do not find any
               manifest error or otherwise illegality, procedural or
               otherwise, so as to justify interference in criminal revision.

 C             4. Dismissed.”
              11. In our view, as would be clear from the perusal of the impugned
       order, the High Court while dismissing the revision did not assign any
       reason. We cannot countenance disposal of the revision in this manner.
              12. The least that was expected of was that the High Court will
 D     apply its judicial mind to the factual and legal aspects arising in the case
       and then pass appropriate orders either for upholding the conviction or
       acquitting the appellants, as the case may be. We find that the High
       Court failed to do this and hence interference is called for.
              13. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, made
 E     submissions on various issues arising in the case. We do not wish to take
       note of them and nor consider it proper to deal with them. The appellants
       are free to raise their submissions before the High Court.
             14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and
       is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is
 F     remanded to the High Court for deciding the revision petition, out of
       which this appeal arises, afresh on merits in accordance with law.
             15. We request the High Court to decide the revision preferably
       within six months.

 G     Nidhi Jain                      Appeal allowed and matter remanded to High Court.




 H