Patna High Court
SHABANA PRAVEENversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The revision petition is dismissed as there is no ground for interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
Summary
Shabana Praveen filed a revision petition challenging the acquittal of respondents Firoz Ahmad Khan and Nazia Parween by the trial court, which was upheld by the appellate court. The petition alleged that the lower courts erred in acquitting the accused on charges under IPC sections 420, 387, 354 and 120B. The High Court examined its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing that it is supervisory and not a substitute for an appeal, and may intervene only in exceptional cases of miscarriage of justice. After reviewing the material, the Court found no illegality, perverse finding, or procedural flaw in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the Court held that there was no ground for interference and dismissed the revision petition on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can set aside the acquittal under its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC
- Whether any of the exceptional situations justifying revision, such as illegality, perverse appreciation of evidence, or miscarriage of justice, are present in the present case
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 397, 401
Subjects
- revision jurisdiction
- supervisory jurisdiction
- Criminal Procedure Code
- acquittal
- miscarriage of justice
- high court review
- IPC sections 420, 387, 354, 120B
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1542 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-267 Year-2012 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West
Champaran
======================================================
Shabana Praveen D/o- Safaur Rahman, Resident of Village- Mahawat Toli,
Ward No. 35, P.S.- Bettiah Town, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Firoz Ahamad Khan S/o- Isteyaq Ahmad, Resident of Village- Chhawani,
P.S.- Bettiah Nagar, District- West Champaran.
3. Nazia Parween D/o- Qunain, Resident of Village- Chhawani, P.S.- Bettiah
Nagar, District- West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisuzzoha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
7 18-06-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner has removed all the
defects, however, he has not paid the cost of Rs.1,000/-. But he
submits that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the cost.
2. In view of the incapacity of the petitioner to pay the
cost, the cost is waived off.
3. Now the case is matured for hearing on admission.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on
admission.
5. The present revision petition has been preferred
against the impugned judgment dated 12.07.2019 passed by
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1542 of 2019(7) dt.18-06-2026
2/6
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Champaran at
Bettiah, whereby learned Appellate Court has upheld the
judgment of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, West Champaran at Bettiah in G.R. Case No. 1644 of
2012, Criminal Trial No. 516 of 2018 arising out of Bettiah
Town P.S. Case No. 267 of 2012, whereby learned Trial Court
has acquitted the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of all the charges
framed under Sections 420, 387, 354 and 120B of the Indian
Penal Code.
6. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State and perused the material on record.
Extent and Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction of
the High Court
7. Before I proceed to consider the rival submission of
the parties, it is desirable to see the extent and scope of
revisional jurisdiction of High Court. As per the statutory
provisions and judicial precedents, it is settled principle of law
that the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is
a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction under Section 397
read with Section 401 Cr.PC in order to correct the miscarriage
of justice arising out of judgment, order, sentence or finding of
subordinate Courts by looking into correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding, sentence or order as recorded or passed
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1542 of 2019(7) dt.18-06-2026
3/6
by subordinate Courts and as to the regularity of any proceeding
of such inferior Courts.
8. However, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction
by the High Court is discretionary in nature to be applied
judiciously in the interest of justice.
9. Under revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is
not entitled to re-appreciate the evidence for itself as if it is
acting as a Court of appeal, because revisional power cannot be
equated with the power of an Appellate Court, nor can it be
treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Hence,
ordinarily, it is not appropriate for the High Court to re-
appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the
same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the
Trial and Appellate Court, unless there are exceptional situations
like glaring error of law or procedure and perversity of finding,
causing flagrant miscarriage of justice, brought to the notice of
the High Court. Such exceptional situations have been
enumerated by Hon’ble Apex Court on several occasions which
are as follows:-
(i) when it is found that the trial court has no
jurisdiction to try the case or;
(ii) when it is found that the order under revision
suffers from glaring illegality or;
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1542 of 2019(7) dt.18-06-2026
4/6
(iii) where the trial court has illegally shut out the
evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or;
(iv) where the judgment/order is based on
inadmissible evidence, or;
(v) where the material evidence which clinches the
issue has been overlooked either by the Trial Court or the
Appellate Court or;
(vi) where the finding recorded is based on no
evidence or;
(vii) where there is perverse appreciation of
evidence or;
(viii) where the judicial discretion is exercised
arbitrarily or capriciously or;
(ix) where the acquittal is based on a compounding
of the offence, which is invalid under the law.
10. However, it has been cautioned by Hon’ble
Supreme Court that the aforesaid kinds of situations are
illustrative and not exhaustive.
11. Here, one may refer to the following judicial
precedents:
(i) Akalu Ahir and Ors. vs Ramdeo Ram
(1973) 2 SCC 583
(ii) K. Chinnaswami Reddy vs State of A.P.
1962 SCC Online SC 32
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1542 of 2019(7) dt.18-06-2026
5/6
(iii) Duli Chand Vs Delhi Administration
(1975) 4 SCC 649
(iv) Janta Dal Vs H.S. Chowdhary & Ors.
(1992) 4 SCC 305
(v) Vimal Singh Vs Khuman Singh & Anr.
(1998) 7 SCC 323
(vi) State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana I. J. Namboodiri
(1999) 2 SCC 452
(vii) Thankappan Nada & Ors. Vs. Gopala Krishnan
(2002) 9 SCC 393
(viii) Jagannath Chaudhary Vs. Ramayan Singh
(2002) 5 SCC 659
(ix) Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh & Ors.
Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & Anr.
(2002) 6 SCC 650
(x) Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam
(2009) 13 SCC 330
(xi) Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
(2012) 9 SCC 460
(xii) Ganesha Vs. Sharanappa & Anr.
(2014) 1 SCC 87
(xiii) Shlok Bhardwaj v. Runika Bhardwaj & Ors.
(2015) 2 SCC 721
(xiv) Sanjaysinh R. Chavan Vs. D. G. Phalke
(2015) 3 SCC 123
(xv) Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh
(2022) 8 SCC 204
Present Case
12. Now coming to the case on hand, I find that
learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any ground
for interference by this Court in the impugned judgment. I do
not find any illegality, impropriety or perversity of any finding
in the impugned judgment.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1542 of 2019(7) dt.18-06-2026
6/6
13. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed
on merit.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
ravishankar/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.