MEENU BANERJEE Vs. RAJMANI PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 30. 12. 04 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 420/04 by which learned Additional Sessions judge has refused to hear the criminal revision on the ground that the judgment of acquittal dated 21. 8. 04 passed by Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in criminal Case No. 477/2002 ought to have been challenged by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ).

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that in the State case private party was having no locus standi to prefer appeal and only revisoional remedy is available to the petitioner which present petitioner has invoked but the learned Additional Sessions judge has not heard and decided the revision on merits and dismissed only on the ground that it ought to have been heard by way of appeal. Judgment dated 21. 7. 04 copy of the judgment reveals that in the case filed by the poliqe learned Additional Chief Judicial magistrate. Bilaspur has acquitted the accused persons. Revision against such judgment of acquittal was filed by the present petitioner who is affected person of the case, under the Provisions of Section 378 (3) of the Code. State has competent to file appeal against such judgment of acquittal but private party was not competent to assail the judgment in appeal.

(3.) WHILE dealing with the question of maintainability in case of K Chinaswamy reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another apex Court has held that in case of revision against the judgment of acquittal by the private party though the State may not thought fit to appeal High Court only in exceptional cases set aside the order of acquittal para 7 reads as follows: