TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. As per the settled legal position and after conviction by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court on filing the revision the High Court maintained the conviction upholding the findings of the two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court while allowing the Revision in part directed that sentences so awarded shall run concurrently. 3. The facts briefly put are that, one Ambika Prasad was the Director of the Company namely Revanchal Vitta and Commercial Vikas Limited Company (herein after referred to as the Company ) and the appellant/accused No.2 was the Area Manager of the Company. The Company was engaged in the activity of collecting money through its agents by deposits like a Bank and assured to give 8 to 10% annual interest to the depositors. The passbook and ledger accounts were also kept and maintained by the Company with respect to deposits. The money deposit receipts were also given to the depositors. The depositors have made deposits with intent to earn i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Judge, Dhamtari. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 29.01.2005 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of conviction and sentences as directed by the Trial Court. 5. Assailing the order passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, appellant and the other co-accused filed Criminal Revision Nos.95 of 2005 89 of 2006. The High Court maintained the conviction with the observation that commission of an offence under Section 409 of IPC has been proved because the agents were functioning under the instructions of the appellant. The depositors deposited the amount under a trust which has been breached by not refunding the same by the company. Thus, the Court while affirming the finding to prove the guilt of charge under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roved in the instant case by the courts below; the argument regarding conviction of Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC both being antithetical was never raised before the courts below, which cannot be permitted to raise at this stage. 8. Heard Mr. Awanish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sourav Roy, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh and perused the record. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two Courts after detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by re-appreciating the evidence. 10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice. 8. .The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure. 11. Thus, it is evident from the above that this Court being the fourth court should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of conviction for two or more offences. 11. In light of the above observation made, this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar Anr v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Crl. Appeal 526 of 2021) relied upon the judgment of O.M. Cherian alias Thankachan v.State of Kerala Ors. (2015) 2 SCC 501, wherein the Court in paragraphs 20 and 21 held the following: 20. Under Section 31 CrPC it is left to the full discretion of the court to order the sentences to run concurrently in case of conviction for two or more offences. It is difficult to lay down any straitjacket approach in the matter of exercise of such discretion by the courts. By and large, trial courts and appellate courts have invoked and exercised their discretion to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
