Chockalingam vs Annamalai Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Aruna Jagadeesan, J.—The revision is preferred as against the order dated 30.08.2007 made in C.C.No. 142 of 2004 by the learned VI Judicial Magistrate, Salem, whereby the accused were acquitted of the charges laid against them under sections 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act read with Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1980 and u/s 484 of Indian Penal Code.

Against the said order dated 30.08.2007, the State preferred an appeal along with an application to condone the delay of 382 days in filing the said appeal. By an order dated 13.10.2009, this Court dismissed the said application thereby refusing to condone the delay of 382 days in filing the appeal. Against the said order dated 13.10.2009, the State preferred a Special Leave to Appeal to the Honourable Supreme Court of India along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal. By order dated 19.11.2013, the said Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on the ground of delay. The present revision has been filed by the defacto complainant namely the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board against the order dated 30.08.2007 passed by the learned VI Judicial Magistrate, Salem in C.C.No. 142 of 2004.

Mr.K.Ravi learned counsel appearing for M/s. Rugan and Arya for the respondents/accused raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this revision on the ground that the dismissal of the appeal preferred by State against the order of acquittal puts a finality on the judgment of the trial Court and even if the said dismissal of appeal is on the ground of limitation, it is a case of dismissal for all purposes and therefore, this Court cannot exercise its discretion in revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal at the instance of a private party.

Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and Another, . In the aforesaid decision in paragraph No. 15, the Honourable Supreme Court in similar circumstance has held as follows:

The High Court has noticed the fact that the State had preferred an appeal against the acquittal of the appellants. That appeal was dismissed by the High Court on the ground of limitation. In principle that makes no difference, because the dismissal of the appeal even on the ground of limitation is a dismissal for all purposes. As observed earlier, the jurisdiction of the High Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal preferred u/s 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is much wider than the jurisdiction of revisional Court exercising jurisdiction u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of acquittal at the instance of a private party. All grounds that may be urged in support of the revision petition may be urged in the appeal, but not vice versa. The dismissal of an appeal preferred by the state against the order of acquittal puts a seal of finality on the judgment of the trial Court. In such case it may not be proper exercise of discretion to exercise revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 of the Code of criminal Procedure against the order of the acquittal at the instance of a private party. Exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such a case may give rise to an incongruous situation where an accused tried and acquitted of an offence, and the order of acquittal upheld in appeal by its dismissal, may have to face a second trial for the same offence of which he was acquitted.

The same view has been expressed in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in K. Ramachandran Vs. V.N. Rajan and Another, . The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder.

In effect by sub-Section (6), the finality attained by the dismissal of an application for special leave is confirmed by the Court then that verdict would operate against the said judgment of acquittal being challenged even at the instance of the State Government. If this is the effect of the finality attained by the judgment, even in case of an offence which was tried on the basis of a private complaint, then there would be no reason not to give the same effect to the finality attained by the judgment of acquittal by reason of the order passed in appeal, filed by the State Government.

Therefore, in view of the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court referred above, this revision is not maintainable and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.