GARG, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant against the order dated 11. 5. 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/st Cases. Bikaner is Sessions Case No. 74/2001 for the offence under Section 302 IPC by which he rejected the prayer of the APP as to re-examination of PW-2 Jetharam.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances :- In the above noted sessions case, the trial was going on before the learned Special Judge, SC/st Cases, Bikaner and during trial, PW-2 Jetharam was examined on 5. 5. 2001 and he was also cross- examined on that day and since court time ended, therefore, the court adjourned his further cross-examination for 11. 5. 2001. But, when on 11. 5. 2001, he was being further cross-examined by the learned counsel on behalf of the accused respondents, this witness spoke in the tune of defence and started to give answer favouring to accused respondents. Therefore, when the cross- examination of PW-2 Jetharam was over, an oral prayer was made by the APP of that Court that since contradictions had come in the cross-examination of PW-2 Jetharam about the role of the accused respondents, therefore, he may be allowed to re-examine PW-2 Jetharam so that he could get explanation from this witness. On that prayer of App, the learned counsel for the accused respondents put objections and the learned Special Judge rejected the prayer of APP holding that there was no jurisdiction for that and that rejection order was passed at the conclusion of statement of PW-2 Jetharam. IT may be stated here that there is no dispute on the point that the learned APP did not file any written application before the learned Special Judge for re-examination of PW-2 Jetharam, but oral prayer was made by him. Aggrieved from the said order dated 11. 5. 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/st Cases, Bikaner rejecting one prayer of APP for re-examination of PW-2 Jetharam, the complainant in this case has filed this revision petition. The main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-complainant is that rejection of prayer of the learned APP for re-examination of PW-2 Jetharam has resulted in miscarriage of justice and, therefore, learned APP should have been allowed to re-examine PW-2 Jetharam. Hence, it was prayed that this revision petition be allowed and the learned Special Judge, SC/st Cases. Bikaner be directed to re-call PW-2 Jetharam so that learned APP may re-examine him. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order dated 11. 5. 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/st Cases, Bikaner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner complainant, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. Before appreciating the contentions raised at the bar, one prayer is that a revision petition especially in a State case by a private complainant is not maintainable.
(3.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (1), has held that a revision can be made entertainable at the instance of private parties, but this jurisdiction should be be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, where there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. The above view was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramu @ Ram Kumar and Ors. vs. Jagannath (2), and it was further held that revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it was invoked by a private complainant. In Kishan Swaroop vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (3), the Hon'ble Supreme Court though observed that a private party has no right to file revision/appeal in a case instituted upon a police report, all the same. the Hon'ble Supreme Court placed reliance on its earlier decision in Chinnaswamy Reddy's case (supra) and the observations made in that case were also quoted meaning thereby law laid down in Chinnaswamy Reddy's case (supra) was found correct law. ;