Chanda Mala Chitemma vs The State of A.P. and Others

Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.—This revision is directed against the calendar and judgment in C.C. No. 115 of 2007 dated 27.04.2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur, whereby the unofficial Respondents who were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 427 and 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C. were acquitted after full-fledged trial.

The facts, in brief, are that the Petitioner, who was examined as P.W.1, gave a report on the basis of which a case in Crime No. 72 of 2007 was registered against the unofficial Respondents herein and, after investigation, charge sheet was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur Police Station, and, as stated supra, the learned Magistrate took cognisance of the same and numbered it as C.C. No. 115 of 2007 and, after full-fledged trial, the unofficial Respondents were acquitted. As the State has not chosen to prefer an appeal against the said acquittal as provided for u/s 378(4) of Cr.P.C, the present revision is filed by the de facto complainant invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure

In my considered opinion, this revision is not maintainable in view of the latest amendment which has come into force in the month of January 2010. Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure states that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. However, a provision was introduced by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 i.e. Act No. 5 of 2009 and the said proviso reads as under:

Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.

From the above amendment, it is clear that the person who was affected because of the said offences i.e. the victim can maintain an appeal and the said appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. Here, the unofficial Respondents were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 427 and 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and, in the ordinary course, if they are convicted an appeal lies only to the concerned Sessions Court and, as the Petitioner herein was the victim, she has a right to prefer an appeal which shall lie before the concerned Sessions Court as per Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure but cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court u/s 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure

Accordingly, the petition to condone the delay of 9 days in filing this revision so also the revision stands dismissed, however, giving liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal in accordance with the proviso to Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure if it is within time.