Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dilip Kukmar Mondal And vs Unknown on 30 January, 2023
30.1.2023
Item No.16
BR
CRR 2329 of 2010
With
CRAN 1 of 2011 , CRAN 3 of 2012
In the matter of : Dilip Kukmar Mondal and
another
.......petitioner
Mr.Milon Mukherjee, Senior Advocate,
Mr. Biswajit Manna,
Mr. Smartajit Sarkar
.... For the Petitioners
Mr. Binay Panda,
Mr. Subham Bhakat .... For the State
This criminal revision challenges the
judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge,Birbhum at Rampurhat in criminal revision no.
20 of 2008. By the impugned judgment. Learned
Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to set aside the
judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 2 nd
Court, Rampurhat with further direction to examine the
de facto complainant and two other witnesses and to
adjudicate the case afresh by passing a separate
judgment. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel fairly
submits that the application under consideration seeks
the attention of the Court on a specific law point as to
whether the de facto complainant has the locus standi
to file the criminal revision before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge and whether learned
Additional Sessions Judge had the jurisidction to
entertain such application .
From the attending facts of the case it is
admitted that Krishna Nandan Moni filed a petition of
complaint against Dilip Kumar Mondal and Bipad Taran
Mondal for allegedly committing offence of forgery and
cheating within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code.
The said petition of complaint was forwarded under
Section 156 ( 3c) of Cr P C to the Officer-in-Charge of
Mayureswar P.S. and Mayureswar P.S. Case No. 33 of
1993 was registered. Police took up investigation
which culminated into submission of charge sheet
against both the accused persons. The accused
persons stood the trial of the case before the learned
2nd Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rampurhat being GR
Case No. 227 of 1993 and learned trial Court after
considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution
witnesses, was pleased to record an order of acquittal
under Section 248 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The said order of acquittal was challenged before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge by way of criminal
revision which gave birth to the judgment impugned.
The incident took place on 22 nd August, 1989
when the right to appeal was not given to the victim.
Admittedly, State did not prefer any appeaL
Under such circumstances, the remedy available
under the law was to invoke the provision of sub-
Section 4 of Section 401 of Criminal Proceudre Code.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge however, had no
jurisdiction to entertain the criminal revision. The
impugned judgment is glaring example of
transgression jurisdiction, not vested upon the learned
Additional Sessions Judge.
Under such a situation , I am of the view that
the impugned order cannot be allowed to remain in
force, to avert the abuse of process of law and should
be quashed which I accordingly do.
Thus, the criminal revision is disposed of.
Application, if any is also disposed of.
Let a copy of the order be sent down to the
learn Trial Court for information and necessary action.
Urgent certified copy ,if applied therefor, be
supplied upon compliance of usual formalities.
( Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. )
