Holding

A High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is limited to supervisory review and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of appellate findings unless a gross miscarriage of justice is evident.

Summary

The accused, an employee of Western India Plywoods, was convicted by a Judicial Magistrate and affirmed by an Additional Sessions Judge for offences under IPC sections 408, 468 and 477A, involving misappropriation of empty barrels and forgery of documents. He filed a revision before the Kerala High Court, which set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the High Court had not considered certain pieces of evidence. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence. The Supreme Court held that a revisional court’s power is supervisory, not appellate, and it may not re‑appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings unless a glaring miscarriage of justice is shown. It also observed that the High Court failed to examine several items of evidence relied upon by the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, confirmed the conviction and sentence, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under CrPC s.397, can reappreciate evidence and substitute its own findings on conviction and sentence.
Whether the High Court must consider all items of evidence examined by the lower courts in a revision.
Scope and limits of the supervisory revisional power of a High Court in criminal matters.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 397
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 408, s. 468, s. 477A

Subjects

revisional jurisdictionCrPC Section 397supervisory jurisdictionevidence reappreciationconvictionappeal vs revisionIPC sections 408 468 477Amiscarriage of justice

Judgment

.... STATE OF KERALA A
.... v.
PUTTUMANA ILLATH JATHAVEDAN NAMBOODIRI ETC.

FEBRUARY 11, 1999

(G.B. PATTANAIK AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] B
-·• Criminal Procedure Code 1973-Section 397-Revisional jurisdic-
tio11-Co11viction and sentence by Magistrate and by Sessions Judge in ap-
peal-High Court setting aside conviction and sentence upon reappreciating
evidence, whether exceeding its revisional jurisdiction----Held, revisio11al power c
ca1111ot be equated with appellate power-U11less any glaring feature is brought
to the notice of the High Court which would tantamount to gross miscarriage
of justice, High Court not to reappreciate evidence and come to its_ own con-
clusion-Penal Code, Sections 408, 468 and 477A.

The accused-respondent was convicted and sentenced by the D
Magistrate for offences under Sections 408, 468 and 477A, IPC. This was
affirmed in appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge who reappraised
the entire evidence, oral and documentary. On revision being filed by the
accused, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish
the case beyond reasonable doubt. E
In appeal before this Court, it was contended for the state that the
High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in interfering with the
order of conviction and sentence by reappreciating the evidence on record;
and that the High Court had in fact not considered several items of
evidence. It was urged for the accused that the case being one of no F
evidence, the High Court was justified in exercising its revisional jurisdic-
tion. Further, in the absence of entrustment having been established, the
charges under Sectfon 408 could not be held to have been established.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
G
HELD : 1. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering
.-~
with the conviction by reappreciating the oral evidence. In its· revisional
jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any
proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. ID other words, the H
575
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court ·'
for correcting miscarriage of justice. But this revisional power cannot be ..
equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated as a
second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be ap-
propriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its
\
own conclusion when the evidence has already been appreciated by the
B Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring
feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise
tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. [578-D-F]
..
2. The High Court also committed further error in not examining
C several items of evidence relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge
while confirming the conviction. [578-G]

3. The impugned judgment of the High Court is therefore wholly
unsustainable in law. [578-H]

D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal no.
554 of 1995 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.2.94 of the Kerala High Court
in Crl. R.P. No. 521 of 1988.

E G. Prakash for State of Kerala for the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 554/95.

U.R. Lalit, M. K. Sasidharan, T. G. Narayanan Nair for the Appel-
lant in S.L.P. No. 1466/94.

M.N. Rao and T.T. Kunhikannan for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PATTANAIK, J. The State of Kerala is in appeal against the Judg-
ment dated 4.2.94 of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Revision Petition
No. 521 of 1988. By the impugned Judgment, the High Court in revision,
G has interfered with the conviction and sentence passed against the accused
respondent of the offences under Sections 408, 468 and 477A of the Indian ',• _
Penal Code.

The accused-respondent was an employee of Western India
H Plywoods and was head of the purchase section. In course of his duties, he
STATEv. P.IJ. NAMBOODIRI [PATTANAIK,J.] 577

- " was supposed to send empty barrels to the suppliers for getting the A
chemical Formal-dehyde. <The prosecution alleged that in the process of
sending such empty barrels to the suppliers for the purpose of getting
refilled Formal-dehyde between the period 10.10.74 to 25.6.75, the accused-
respondent manipulated the official records and documents and sold 660
empty barrels, the value of which was Rs.69,300/- and himself appropriated
the same, thereby committed offence under Section408, 468 and 477A of
B
-;
;,.
the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses
and exhibited 96 documents. On a thorough consideration of the evidence
on record, both oral and documentary, the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Cannanore, came to the conclusion that the accused while
working as head of the purchase section of the Western India Plywoods, c
took the empty barrels concerned from the factory and diverted the same
to a destination of his own choice and disposed of the same according to
his own convenience and mis-appropriated the entire sale proceeds there-
}
of. The Magistrate also recorded a clear finding that the accused falsified
the documents Exhibits P-2(a), P-2(b) and P-3(a), the gate passes by
D
furnishing false information in the same and also forged the railway
receipts by affixing the seal of the Western India Plywoods and putting his
signature on the railway receipts on behalf of the company and thereby the
charges against the accused have been established beyond reasonable
doubt. For his conviction under Sections 408 and 468, the accused was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five months each and to pay E
a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default S.I. for one month each under each
count and for offence under Section 477A, he was sentenced to pay a fine
of Rs.1000/-, in default, S.I. for two months. Sentences were directed to run
concurrently. On appeal being carried, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Tellicherry, re-appraised the entire evidence, oral and documentary
F
Ji" and affirmed the conclusion of the learned Magistrate and upheld the
conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate. On a revision being filed
by the accused, the High Court by the impugned Judgment interfered with
the conviction and sentence and came to hold that the prosecution has
failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
G
Mr. Prakash, the learned counsel, appearing for the State of Kerala
x~
contended that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in
interfering with an order of conviction and sentence passed thereunder by
re-appreciating the evidence on record and, therefore, the impugned Judg-
ment is wholly unsustainable in law. The learned counsel also contended H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R.

A that the High Court even has not considered several items. of evidence /
which had been considered by the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions
Judge in appeal and on such score also the impugned Judgment is unsus-
.....
tainable.

Mr. M.N. Rao, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the ac-
B cused-respondent on the other hand contended that the case being one of
no evidence, the High Court was justified in exercising its revisional juris-
diction and in interfering with the conviction and sentence passed against
...
~

the accused. The learned counsel also contended that in the absence of any
entrustment being established, the charges under Section 408 could not
c have held to have been established beyond reasonable doubt by the
prosecution and therefore, the High Court was justified in interfering with
the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate which had
been upheld in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

D Having examined the impugned Judgment of the High Court and
bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that in the case
in hand, the High Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. In Its
revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record
of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness,
E legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the
. jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court
for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot
be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated
a
even as second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not
be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come
F
to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been
appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal,
-.
unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which
would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinizing
the impugned Judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid stand point,
G we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court
exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respon-
dent by re-appreciating the oral evidence. The High Court also committed <
·'
further error in not examining several items of evidence relied upon by the
AdditiOnal Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction of the respon-
H dent. In this view of the matter the impugned Judgment of the High Court
STATEv. P.I.J.NAMBOODIRI [PATTANAIK,J.] 579
is wholly unsustainable in law and we, accordingly set aside the same. The A
conviction and sentence of the respondent as passed by the Magistrate and
affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal is confirmed. This
appeal is allowed. Bail bonds furnished stand cancelled. The respondent
must surrender to serve the sentence.

In view of the order in this appeal, no further order is necessary in B
SLP (Criminal) No. 1466/94.

U.R. Appeal allowed.