Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: July 19, 2022 at 18:20 IST
The petition filed against the judgement dated 13.02.2020 given by the High Court of Chattisgarh, wherein the High Court upheld the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, and the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, was being dealt by the Supreme Court of India.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the SC stated that the High Court’s authority in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is very narrow.
Criminal Procedure Code Section 397 grants jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself of the correctness, legality or propriety, of any finding, sentence, or order that has been recorded or passed, as well as the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court.
The provision’s objective, according to the SC, is to set right a patent defectors or errors of law or jurisdiction. A well-founded error must be there which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also widely settled that when considering the same, the revisional court does not dwell at length upon the case’s facts and evidence to reverse those findings.
Sc relied upon the case of O.M. Cherian alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala &Ors.
The SC concluded that there was no infirmity in the High Court’s order after carefully evaluating the submissions made by both sides. Therefore, accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
