Reshambai vs M.P. Govt. and Others

S.S. Dwivedi, J.—Heard.

The applicant has preferred this revision u/s 397, Cr. P.C. feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 26-8-2006 passed by C.J.M. Rajgarh in Criminal Case No. 398/04 whereby acquitted the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 from the charge under Sections 294, 323 and 509, IPC.

Fact of the case are that this case has been fixed for prosecution evidence on 5-4-2005, thereafter on 14-6-2005, then on 25-8-2005, then on 19-10-2005, thereafter on 17-1-2006. On these dates, the witnesses remain absent, therefore, again the case has been fixed for evidence on 22-4-2006. On this date, the witnesses remain absent after their service. Then Court has ordered for issuance of the bailable warrant of Rs. 500/- and fixed the case on 26-4-2006. On this date also, the complainant and her witnesses remain absent, therefore, learned trial Court has closed the prosecution evidence and on the same date, pronounced the judgment of acquittal, hence this revision on behalf of the complainant.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant-complainant is the villager and she remain present before the Special Judge before whom previously the case is pending and due to this reason, could not appear before the trial Court, and the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused persons, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned order.

On perusal of the order sheet, it is apparent that the specific notices were served on the complainant and other witnesses for their appearance before C.J.M. and they remain absent. Then in such a case, which triable as summons case, the Court has option except to close the evidence and this approach of the learned trial Court does not appears to be illegal or per-versei which can be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

Resultantly, the revision being devoid of any merits is dismissed accordingly.