In CRR-1817 of 2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- While exercising revisional powers, HC has very limited jurisdiction which can only be exercised when lower Courts have acted beyond jurisdiction vested in them, have not exercised it diligently or exercised it illegally: P&H HC
Justice Namit Kumar [20-02-2023]

Read Order: Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, February 21, 2023:  The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently held that this Court while exercising its revisional powers has very limited jurisdiction, which can only be exercised, when the Courts below have acted beyond jurisdiction vested in them or have not exercised the same diligently and have exercised illegally.

The petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs 2 lakh from the second respondent and upon his demand, he (petitioner) had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs 2 lakh, which was returned by the concerned bank with a remark “Account closed”. 

As a result, the complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner who was eventually convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, which was also dismissed. 

After hearing the parties, Justice Namit Kumar observed that the High Court, while exercising its revisional powers, has very limited jurisdiction, which can only be exercised, (i) when the Courts below have acted beyond jurisdiction vested in them or (ii) have not exercised the same diligently and (iii) have exercised illegally.

From a perusal of judgments of the Courts below, the Court observed that the petitioner took two contradictory stands, firstly, he stated that the cheque in question was given to the second respondent in the form of  security and secondly, that the cheque in question was misused by the said respondent after she found his lost cheque book. 

However, the  Bench added that he did not deny his signatures on the cheque in question. Further, it was noted that the petitioner could not prove on record that his cheque book containing the cheque in question was lost and the said cheque has been misused by the second respondent, therefore, it was held that the petitioner was rightly convicted and sentenced by the Courts below. 

However, after going the medical record of the petitioner that he was suffering from glaucoma and was having 90% disability of both the eyes; the fact that he suffered agony of trial for a long period and had undergone actual sentence for a period of about seven months out of total sentence of one year as the petitioner wa in custody since July 2022, taking a lenient view, the Bench found it to be just and expedient to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone by him about seven months. 

"Adverting to the facts of the present case and keeping in view the mitigating circumstances noted above, this Court is of the considered view and has no hesitation to conclude that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of the petitioner is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by him", Justice Kumar held.