THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CRL.R.C.No. 41 of 2009
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the de facto complainant under Section 397 (2) and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 21.07.2008, passed in C.C.No.470 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapalli, acquitting the respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
As against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate on a complaint, an appeal will lie only before the High Court under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C., but not revision.
Sub-section (4) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C., which deals with appeal in case of acquittal, reads as under:
"If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an 2 application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court".
Coming to the ambit of power of High Court under Section 401 of Cr.P.C., the High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgments of acquittal passed by the trial Court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 of Cr.P.C. mandates that the High Court shall not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
Having regard to the fact that the revision petitioner/de facto complainant instead of approaching this Court and invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 (2) and 401 of Cr.P.C., should have preferred an appeal as provided for under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. since against an order of acquittal an appeal lies but not a revision. Therefore, the Registry ought to have rejected the 3 revision at the stage of numbering itself, however, it was numbered in 2009 and kept pending before this Court for 14 long years. In this view of the matter, this revision is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. Further, the Registry is directed to take note of it and be cautious while numbering this type of cases in future.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA 06 .04.2023 Gsn.