AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 147 wordsG. Patribasavan Goud, J.—In a proceeding instituted on a complaint u/s 200 of the Cr. P.C., the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused due to absence of the complainant. As against that order of acquittal, an appeal lies u/s 378(4) of the Cr. P.C. As against such an order against which an appeal lies, no revision u/s 397 of the Cr. P.C. would be entertained in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 401 of the Cr. P.C. Still, by the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge entertained the revision petition and allowed it. The impugned order, therefore, is clearly the one passed without jurisdiction.
This petition is allowed and the said order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside, with liberty to the respondent-complainant to question the original order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, by way of appeal u/s 378(4) of the Cr. P.C.