Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maruti Irappa Vani, claiming to be a victim, filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The petition challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Khanapur, in C.C.No.712 of 2007, whereby the respondents/accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The petitioner sought to set aside the acquittal and convict the accused. The respondents included Laxman Yallappa Godi and five other individuals, as well as the State of Karnataka through Khanapur Police Station. The petitioner was represented by Sri M.B. Gundawade, while respondents 1 to 6 were represented by Sri Shreevatsa S. Hegde, and respondent 7 (State) by Sri Anthony R. Rodrigues, AGA. The High Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the records, dismissed the revision petition, holding that the trial court's judgment of acquittal was based on a proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The court observed that the revisional court's jurisdiction is limited and cannot interfere with an acquittal merely because a different view is possible. The court found no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 Cr.P.C. - Scope of Interference - The revisional court can interfere with an acquittal only if the judgment is perverse, illegal, or suffers from a manifest error of law or fact. The court held that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-10) B) Indian Penal Code - Cheating and Forgery - Sections 420, 423, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC - Acquittal - The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the complainant failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The revisional court upheld the acquittal, finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court's reasoning. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse, illegal, or suffers from any error of law warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the trial court's judgment of acquittal.
Law Points
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
- Acquittal judgment cannot be interfered with unless perverse or illegal
- Victim's right to file revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
