0

The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding: High Court of Delhi

The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction. In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can examine the records of any proceedings for satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by JUSTICE ASHA MENON in the case of RAJENDER SINGH THAKUR vs. STATE & ANR. [CRL.REV.P. 155/2022] on 22.03.2022.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed in Bangkok Mart, Lajpat Nagar, where the complainant also obtained a job as Accountant through Monster.com. The shift usually ended up at 7:30 PM, but one day, the women staff occupying other rooms started to leave around 4 PM but the complainant got late due to heavy paper work. The complainant was able to wrap up to leave around 4:30 PM. At that time, the petitioner is alleged to have held her from behind and she could free herself after much struggle and came out from the back door after arranging the key. Since her initial complaint to Monster.com regarding the incident did not result in any action against the petitioner, she lodged a complaint with the police at Police Station Lajpat Nagar under Section 354 IPC.

The learned Mahila Court sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and directed him to pay the compensation of Rs.15,000 to the victim. Aggrieved by this conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal. This petition has been filed challenging the conclusions of the learned Appellate Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the courts below have overlooked material flaws in the prosecution’s case and therefore, the conviction and sentence was liable to be set aside. It was submitted that both the courts have overlooked contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix. In view of these contradictions, no reliance could have been placed on the sole testimony of prosecutrix to convict the petitioner.

The respondent’s counsel submitted that the petitioner in all his submissions, has not been able to point out any error in the judgment of either the Mahila Court or the learned ASJ which requires interference by this Court. Thus, it was prayed that the present revision petition was liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

The Court found no ground whatsoever to interfere either with the judgment and order of sentence of the Mahila Court or the judgment of the Appellate Court. It was observed that, “the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction. In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can examine the records of any proceedings for satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. There has to be perversity or unreasonableness, complete misreading of records leading to the court taking into consideration irrelevant material while ignoring relevant material, when alone the High Court would exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside such order/judgment.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Shristi Suman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat