$~85 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010208442022 + CRL.REV.P. 330/2022 STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP. versus RAM SAGAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 06.08.2026 1. This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 18.02.2020 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’) whereby Jakir Ali has been discharged from the charges of offence under Section 3765D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). 2. Recently, the Supreme Court in Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah,1 elaborated upon the scope of powers that a Revisional Court exercises, at para. 7 and 7.1 the Court held as under: “7. Before parting, we would like to accentuate upon the revisional jurisdiction of the High Courts and the contours and inherent limits while exercising powers as a revisional authority. Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now, Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sannhita, 2023) encapsulates the power of High Courts and Session Courts to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by an inferior criminal court. ... 1 2026 INSC 790. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:12:40 **** Discretion in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction should be exercised within the four corners of this section whenever there has been miscarriage of justice. However, while exercising power under this section, the Court does not act as an appellate Court and therefore while considering the legality, propriety or the correctness of a finding or a conclusion, the revisional court does not and should not dwell upon the facts and the evidence of the case as an appellate Court. The court, in revision, considers the material only to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order recorded by the lower court, and should refrain from substituting its conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence and the findings of the lower courts should not be reversed merely on the ground that an alternative view is possible on the facts of the case. In this case, such a position did not also emanate from the evidence on record. 7.1 This Court, in the State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 observed that the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, cannot embark upon an in-depth roving re- examination of the oral evidence and medical evidence and come to a conclusion contrary to the consistent one reached by two courts below. In the facts of the present case, in the impugned judgment, the High Court gravely erred in upsetting the concurrent findings of conviction of the trial court and the Appellate Court by substituting its own conclusions and reasoning on the merits of the case and thereby erred in setting aside the well-reasoned and correct judgement and orders of the trial and appellate courts.” 3. The Impugned Order notes that there is no material against the said accused in order to prosecute him for the said offence. The material portion of the said order reads as under “Admittedly, PW Sh. Tehseen Saify, employer of accused Jakir Ali had stated in his statement recorded U/s-161 Cr.P.C. that he had sent accused Jakir Ali to Bawarchi Restaurant, N-Block, GK-II, New Delhi on 16.01.2018. PW Sh. Manish Pratap has endorsed this fact and has stated in his statement recorded U/s-161 Cr.P.C. that on 16.01.2018, he had requested contractor Sh. Tehseen Saify to send a worker at Bawarchi Restaurant, N-Block, GK-II, New Delhi in response to which, Sh. Tehseen Saify had sent accused Jakir Ali. Accused Jakir Ali remained at Bawarchi Restaurant, N-Block, GK-II, New Delhi from 09.10 AM to 11 AM along with him. Further, the call detail records of accused Jakir Ali also fortify this fact that he was present at Bawarchi Restaurant, N-Block, GK-II, New Delhi at the time of alleged incident. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:12:40 **** In view of the above discussion, the court holds that no prima facie case for commission of any offence is made out against accused Jakir Ali. Accordingly, accused Jakir Ali is discharged and he is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. forthwith.” 4. Accordingly, considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the present case, the Impugned Order does not warrant interference. The revision petition is, thus, dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 6, 2026 tr/nk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:12:40