RAMANIKLAL GOKALDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad for offences under Sections 419, 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The conviction is based solely on the identification of the appellant by two witnesses, namely, Jayantilal Vyas and Karsan Lad. The evidence of both these witnesses has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court and on the basis of this evidence, the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court have arrived at concurrent findings of fact resulting in the conviction of the appellant, The veracity and credibility of the evidence of these two witnesses is assailed before us on behalf of the appellant, but we do not see any reason to interfere with the appreciation of this evidence,by the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court.

(3.) It is a wholesome rule evolved by this court, which has been consistently followed. that in a criminal case, while hearing an appeal by special leave, this Court should not ordinarily embark upon a reappreciation of the evidence, when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have agreed in their appreciation of the evidence and arrived at concurrent findings of fact. It must be remembered that this Court is not a regular Court of appeal which an accused may approach as of right in criminal cases. It is an extraordinary jurisdiction which this Court exercises when it entertains an appeal by special leave and this jurisdiction, by its very nature, is exercisable only when this Court is satisfied that it is necessary to interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice. Mere errors in appreciation of the evidence are not enough to attract this invigilatory jurisdiction. Or else this Court would be converted into a regular Court of appeal where every judgment of the High Court in a criminal case would be liable to be scrutinised for its correctness, That is not the function of this Court.