Tag: #CriminalRevisionPetition

The Bench of justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari on 4 August 2021 observed that a condition of depositing a fine amount to hear a criminal revision under section 397 and 401 C.R.P.C cannot be imposed on a convict. The Bench was hearing an appeal against an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka under criminal revision.

The Trial court convicted the appellant under section 138 of the N.I act and imposed a fine of Rs. 6,00,000 on the accused and imposed a condition that in case of non-payment of dues, she would have to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial court, she approached the High Court via an appeal. The High Court vide its order passed on 12 June 2020 dismissed the appeal. The accused-appellant approached the High Court via criminal revision petition no 515 0f 2020. The Single bench of the High court took note of the order passed by the trial court, particularly regarding that of fine, and observed that “Unless the fine amount is deposited by the petitioner herein, the petitioner is not entitled to press into service the hearing of this petition filed under section 397 and 401 C.R.P.C.

The bench observed that taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law in the picture, The High Court could not have deposited a fine amount as a condition precedent to hear the criminal revision. The Court finally set aside the order and passed by the High court on 15 January 2021 and granted the liberty to the parties to pursue the matter before the High Court.

-Report by GURPREET SINGH

-Report by GURPREET SINGH

This case dealt with a criminal revision petition filed by petitioners against an order of the trial Court that discharged the respondent, against whom an FIR was filed for causing mischief by fire.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

An FIR bearing number 03/2015 was registered on 8.1.15, alleging that the respondent on the intervening night of 7/8 January, around 2 am had set on fire 2 shops, due to a dispute between the complainant and respondent that arose regarding retainment of those 2 shops. The Investigation officer recorded statements under 161 C.R.P.C and presented the final report before the court indicating the respondent under section 436 of RPC (Ranbir Penal Code). The Trial Court after persuing the final report discharged the respondent by exercising power under 268 CRPC. The Court while discharging the respondent placed reliance on the ground that none of the witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 161 C.R.P.C have stated anything against the respondent, that connects him to the crime. Aggrieved by this order of the trial court, petitioners approached the High Court through criminal revision.

ARGUMENTS IN COURT

• The Petitioners contended that the trial court had erred in its decision to discharge the respondent when from the testimony of the witnesses, the involvement of the respondent can be made out.
• The respondents contended that the offence under section 436 RPC can be made out only when mischief by fire is committed to destroying a dwelling house and therefore this offence cannot be made out in the case of shops.

DECISION OF THE COURT:

The Court agreed with the contention of the petitioners and remanded the present case to the trial court to reconsider the framing of charges in respect of the decision rendered by this court.

REASONING

The Court after examining the statements of witnesses concluded that the witnesses have clearly stated that the respondent set ablaze the shops in the picture. Further circumstantial evidence of him being seen with a mashal point towards him being involved in the crime. The Court attributed motive to the respondent as there was an ongoing dispute between the respondent and the complainant regarding the possession of the shops. The Court relied on Sajjan Kumar v Union of India, where it was held that the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and it must be satisfied regarding the possibility of offence being committed by the accused to conclude that prima facie there is a possibility of him being involved. Further, the Court negative the contention of the respondent and ruled that on a bare reading of section 436 of R.P.C it does apply to places that are the custodian of property and the shop’s stored goods of the complainant, making them custodian of the property. Therefore section 436 shall apply in this present case.