Ram Narain and Ors. vs State of U.P.& Ors.

J. C. Gupta, J.—Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Srivastava, Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 1562001 passed by Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Revision No. 94 of 2001 whereby the order of acquittal dated 2042001 recorded by the Chief Judicial magistrate in Case No. 3140 of 1999 has been set aside and the case has been remanded back to the concerned Magistrate for the denovo trial.

Learned Counsel for the applicant firstly submitted before the Court that revision against the order of acquittal filed before the Sessions Judge was not maintainable. This submission of the learned Counsel for the applicants is misconceived. Subsection (4) of Section 401, CrPC lays down that whereunder this Code an appeallies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. The question that arises for consideration is whether in the present case any appeal could have been brought at the sentence of opposite party No. 2, the complainant against the order of acquittal passed in a police challan case. Section 378 Cr PC makes a provision for appeals in case of acquittal. There is no provision therein which may enable the victim or complainant to file an appeal in the High Court against the order of acquittal in a police challan case. He gets a right to file an appeal under subsection (4) only in such cases where order of acquittal has been passed in a case instituted on a compliant. Therefore, bar of subsection (4) of Section 401, Cr PC will not come in the way where victim files revision against an order of acquittal. Sessions Judge by virtue of subsection (2) of Section 399 CrPC shall have all the powers of revision which are conferred on the High Court under Section 401 CrPC. The revision filed by opposite party No. 2 before the Sessions Judge was thus maintainable. The above submission of learned Counsel for the applicants is therefore, rejected.

So far as the merit of the impugned order is concerned the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate on the ground that the Magistrate concerned had closed the evidence of the prosecution totally overlooking the fact that charges had been framed only in the year 1996 and a cross case was also pending in the same Court. The court finds no illegality in the impugned order and the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly right in setting aside the order of Magistrate which had caused miscarriage of justice.

For the reasons stated above, the revision is dismissed summarily.

Revision dismissed.