Narotam Dass vs Sat Paul

Arun Kumar Goel, Judge

Heard learned counsel for die patties and have gone through the records of this case.

Facts which are not in dispute in the present revision petition are that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the petitioner, FIR EX. PA came to be

registered at Police Station Nowshera, District Rajouri after conclusion of the investigation all the respondents were sent for facing trial in the Court

of SubJudge (Judicial Magistrate), Nowshera under Section 325, 447 and 147 RPC. Trial Court, after examining the challan papers, was of the

view that there was prima facie material to proceed against respondents 1 to 10 and thus framed charge sheet against all respondents. After the

conclusion of trial respondents 1 to 10 have been acquitted. This judgment of the trial court has been questioned by the petitioner in the present

proceedings with a prayer to set aside the order of acquittal dated 28th February, 1907 passed by the trial Magistrate in file No: 127, in case titled

as "" State Vs. Sat Pal and others

When this case was taken up, learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the locusstandi of the

petitioner to maintain this revision petition, as according to him, it was primarily for the State to have filed an appeal against acquittal, alternate

arguments put forth was that no revision is maintainable at the instance of petitioner complainant, who is a private party and the court should be

disinclined entertaining such revision petition. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an attempt to persuade the

Court by urging that if the arguments urged on behalf of respondents 1 to 10 is taken to its logical end, it would result in leading to a grave situation,

thus it is likely to result in failure of justice.

Even on examination of evidence it cannot be said that this is an exceptional case calling for interference in the present revision petition. No glaring

defect in the procedure, muchless a manifest error on a point of law, could be pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after

having referred to the entire evidence on record. Similarly it also cannot be said that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court in any

manner either results in failure of justice or is not possible on analytical examination of prosecution evidence examined during the course of trial.

What is to be done in such a situation need not detain us any further in view of the authorities pronouncement of the Apex court in 1998 Criminal

Law Journal 1409, ""Kishan Swaroop, Appellant Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Respondent,"" where in it was observed as unden

From the impugned judgment we find that the High Court has referred to the provisions of Sections 378 and 210 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure to conclude that it was the primary responsibility of the state to file appeal revision and therefore no criminal revision in respect of an

order which is appealable at the instance of the State could/should be entertained without the requisite permission of the Public Prosecutor. In

drawing the above internees the High Court failed to notice that if the Code of Criminal Procedure did not empower a private party to file a

revision petition against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted on a Police report a formal permission of the Public Prosecutor would not

entitled him to do so. To put is differently, a Public Prosecutor cannot vest a private party with a right which it has got under the Code.

Besides this, in AIR 1962 SC1788, ""K. Chinnaswany Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,"" It was observed as under:

It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the state may not

have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some

glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.

In the light of aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court as well as on the basis of evidence on record no exceptional case could be made out

within the parameters mentioned in the case of ""K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh"" (supra), thus the present revision is not

maintainable at the instance of the petitioner complainant and the same is dismissed accordingly.

Cost on the parties.