Bombay High Court

YELLAPPA S/O. TIMMA BANDGARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that it lacks jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC to re‑appreciate evidence where no illegality or irregularity is shown.

Summary

The applicant filed a private complaint in 2008 leading to a police investigation and charge‑sheet. The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) acquitted the respondents in 2014, and the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the applicant's appeal in 2017. The applicant then filed a criminal revision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that the lower courts failed to properly appreciate the evidence and that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court examined the records and noted that Section 397 confers only limited powers and does not permit the court to re‑appreciate evidence absent a clear illegality or irregularity. Finding no such flaw in the judgments of the lower courts, the High Court dismissed the revision application.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can entertain a revision under Section 397 CrPC to re‑appreciate evidence in the absence of any illegality or irregularity in the lower courts' judgments.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 397

Subjects

criminal revision
Section 397 CrPC
acquittal
appellate jurisdiction
evidence appraisal
private complaint

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41326
                                                 (1)               907crirevn151.17




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     907 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2017
                                   Yellappa S/o. Timma Bandgar
                                                                        ….Applicant
                                             VERSUS

                                The State Of Maharashtra And Others
                                                                      …..Respondent


                Mr. V. C. Solshe, Advocate for the Applicant
                Mr. A.A.A. Khan, APP for the respondents/State

                                       CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
                                          DATE : 04th SEPTEMBER, 2026


                PER COURT :

                1.          The Applicant is challenging the impugned judgment and

                order dated 31-03-2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

                Judge, Latur in Criminal Appeal No. 84/2015 thereby learned

                Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred

                by the Applicant challenging the judgment and order dated 19-08-

                2014 passed by the learned JMFC, Ausa in RCC No. 222/2009. The

                learned JMFC vide said judgment and order dated 19-08-2014 was

                pleased to acquit Respondent Nos. 2 to 10. Therefore, the Applicant

                has approached this Court challenging the aforesaid judgments.

                According to the Applicant, both the courts below have erred in law,

                thereby not appreciating the evidence in proper perspective. He also

                                                                                1 of 3
                                  (2)                907crirevn151.17




submits that if the testimony of the witness have been scrutinized

properly, it would reveal that the prosecution has established its case

beyond all the reasonable doubts and therefore, he submits that the

learned trial court as well as Appellate Court have committed grave

error in law thereby acquitting the Respondents.

2.          With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the

Applicant and the learned Advocate for the Respondent and learned

APP, I have gone through the judgments and orders passed by both the

courts below.

3.          The incident is of 2008. The Applicant had filed private

complaint No. 293/2008 before the learned JMFC, Ausa. On the basis

of said compliant the learned JMFC, passed the order under Section

156(3) of the Cr. P. C. Accordingly, the Police investigated the crime

and filed charge-sheet before the learned JMFC. After recording the

evidence and hearing the learned advocates for the parties, the learned

JMFC vide judgment and order dated 19-08-2014 was pleased to

acquit all the accused persons. Thereafter, the present Applicant

feeling aggrieved by the said acquittal preferred the criminal Appeal

No. 84/2015 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which also

came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 31-03-2017.




                                                                  2 of 3
                                    (3)                907crirevn151.17




4.               This court is having very limited powers under Section

397 which cannot seat as it the Appellate Court in order to appreciate

the evidence. Both the judgments passed by the learned courts below

does not point out any illegality or irregularity so as to impel this

Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr. P. C. .

5.               In that view of the matter, since I am not inclined to

entertain the Revision Application, the Revision Application is

dismissed.



                                  [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ]
VishalK/907crirevn151.17




                                                                      3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…