Nirmal Singh and ors. vs Siri Ram

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

This revision petition has been filed by Nirmal Singh and others against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated July 16, 1986, whereby he accepted the revision petition of Siri Ram respondent and set aside the order of the learned trial Magistrate passed on August 1, 1985, and ordered that a charge under sections 324, 323, Indian Penal Code be framed against Balbir Singh petitioner, under sections 324, 323 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code against Nirmal Singh and Jagtar Singh petitioners and under section 452, Indian Penal Code, against all the petitioners.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Panchayat elections were to be held on September 24, 1983. Nirmal Singh petitioner and one Gurdip Singh were contesting election for the office of Sarpanch. In the election campaign, both the candidates and their relatives and supporters were meeting the voters asking them to vote for their respective candidate. Siri Ram respondent had promised Pritam Singh that he will cast his vote in favour of Gurdip Singh, who is the son of Pritam Singh.

On September 20, 1983, at about 830 P.M. Nirmal Singh, his brother Jagtar Singh and Balbir Singh son of Jagtar Singh came to the house of Siri Ram and raised a Lalkara that they will teach him a lesson for supporting Gurdip Singh in the election. On this, Balbir Singh gave a takwa blow which fell on the right arm of Siri Ram and another blow was given below his elbow of right arm. He also caused an injury by takwa thrustwise in the chest of Siri Ram. Debo wife of Siri Ram intervened. Balbir Singh caused injuries to her also. The alarm raised by Siri Ram attracted Pritam Singh, Gurnam Singh and Karnail Singh who were proceeding towards the house of Siri Ram for canvassing. The accused, on seeing them, ran away. The injured were taken to Civil Dispensary, Dakha, where Dr. P.D. Singla, Medical Officer examined Siri Ram and Debo. The matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken, although medicolegal reports were also handed over to the police. Consequently, Siri Ram filed a complaint in the Court on October 10, 1983.

In support of the complaint, Siri Ram examined himself as a P.W. apart from Pritam Singh, Karnail Singh as eyewitnesses and Dr. P.D. Singla to prove the injuries and closed the case for the purpose of charge.

The learned Magistrate after carefully scrutinising the evidence of these witnesses, came to the conclusion that prima facie no case was made out against the accused and discharged them. Dissatisfied with this order, the respondent Siri Ram filed a revision petition which came up for hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge Ludhiana. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and directed that a charge, as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment be framed against the accused. Aggrieved by this order, the accused petitioners have come up in revision.

It has been argued by Mr. K.S. Keer. the learned counsel for the petitioners, that there was no infirmity or illegality committed by the learned trial Magistrate during the trial or in recording the order of discharge. He has analyst and appreciated all the evidence which was produced before him. Mr. Keer further states that it is apparent from the impugned judgment that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not pointed out any procedural irregularity or any other infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court which may have warranted his interference in revision. Simply because the learned Additional Sessions Judge took a different view of the evidence was no ground to accept the revision petition.

There is merit in the contention of the learned counsel. The scope of revision under section 397, Criminal Procedure Code, is a limited one. The revisional Court cannot set aside the order or judgment of a Subordinate Court, simply because it takes a different view of the evidence. The revisional Court can interfere only if the impugned order is manifestly illegal, unjust or perverse. No such infirmity is discernible in the order of the learned Magistrate.

In this view of the matter, I have no option but to accept the revision petition. 1. therefore, allow this revision petition and set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated July 16, 1986, and restore the order of the learned trial Court dated August 1, 1985.