Rita Purkayastha vs Sunil Nath and Others

H.N. Sarma, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner u/s 401/397/482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 5.6.2004 passed in Criminal Revision No. 52 (3)/03 by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, The said Criminal Revision was also filed by the present petitioner challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 28.7.2003 passed in G.R. Case No. 5257 2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karimganj acquitting the accused persons. The petitioner was the complainant in the aforesaid G.R. Case and the accused persons having been acquitted by the learned trial Court, she filed the aforesaid Criminal Revision challenging the said order of acquittal before the learned Sessions Judge at Karimganj. The learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj upon consideration of the matters in detail rejected the said revision filed against the order of acquittal in view of the bar u/s 401(4) of Cr.P.C.

I have heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. AD Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents.

On a query being asked by this Court about the maintainability of the second revision by the same party in view of the bar u/s 397(3) of Cr.P.C., it has been submitted by the learned counsel that in spite of the aforesaid bar, this Court can entertain an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, learned counsel has referred to the following decisions :

(Prasanta Kumar Dey v. State of West Bengal and Anr.) ;

2 Niranjan Kumar Das Vs. Ranadhir Roy and Others,

In Prasanta Kumar Dey (supra), the Court considered the matter relating to an ex-parte order of maintenance passed against the petitioner by the Court below and on such consideration, the Apex Court in the facts and circumstances of that case held that that was a fit case where the High Court ought not to have dismissed the revision petition solely on the ground of non-maintainability, but should have gone into the merits of the case so as to find out if it was a fit case calling for interference of the High Court, shorn of technicalities u/s 401 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

In Niranjan Kumar Das (supra), this Court, inter alia, held that the Sessions Judge has the jurisdiction to entertain such a revision petition against an order of acquittal.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that a second revision is totally prohibited u/s 397(3) of Cr.P.C. and accordingly this revision petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on the following decisions :

Bansi Lal and Others Vs. Laxman Singh,

Deepti alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Rai and Others, and

Dharampal and others Vs. Smt. Ramshri and others,

The ratio of all the above cases shows that the second revision by the same party is barred u/s 397(3) and in such cases the provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be utilised for exercising the powers, which are expressly barred by the Code.

I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the materials available on record. The petitioner in the instant case has failed to point out any irregularity and/or illegality in passing the impugned order of acquittal by the learned Magistrate. This Court in a rare case can entertain the revision against an order of acquittal. When it is established that there were glaring irregularities and/or procedural defects, this Court can entertain such a revision, but it does not permit re-appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show even, prima facie, that such glaring irregularities and/or procedural defects committed by the trial Court in passing the order of acquittal.

In view of the aforesaid discussions and factual situation, I am not inclined to entertain this revision petition filed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and not to disturb the findings of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 52(3)/ 03. Accordingly, this revision petition is rejected.