DURGA DEVI Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.6.2000 by which Shri R.S.Verma, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi acquitted the respondents 1 to 3 in case FIR No.217/91 P.S. Civil Lines under Sections 302/364/201/34 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, Durga Devi, is the complainant who lodged the FIR reporting that her brother, Prem Kumar Dua, who left her house on 11.6.1991 along with respondent No.1, Vinod Kumar, had disappeared and the respondent No.1 on enquiry from him declined to give any information about her brother. After investigation the charge- sheet was filed under Sections 302/364/201/34 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after trial and examination of the respondents under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the 'Code') acquitted the respondents 1 to 3 holding that the prosecution case was not free from all reasonable doubts. In the revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside the order of acquittal and conviction of the respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) The present judgment is to dispose of the preliminary points raised by the learned counsel for the accused and, therefore, will not deal with the merit of the revision petition. The preliminary points raised are as under:-

(3.) Section 378 of the Code provides for appeals against acquittal. Such right has been given to (1) The State Government, (2) The Central Government when the order of acquittal is passed in any case investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment or by any other agency empowered to investigate into an offence under any Central Act, and (3) to the complainant when the order of acquittal is passed in a case instituted on a complaint. No right to appeal is provided to the complainant or informant when the case is instituted on a police report. At the same time no provision of the Code debars such a complainant from seeking any relief. Nor does any specific provision of the Code declare a complainant in a case instituted on a police report to be competent to file either an appeal or revision. The Supreme Court has recognised the right of a third party like the complainant to seek revision against a judgment of acquittal. The earliest of such judgment can be said to be that of D.Stephens vs. Nosibolla reported as (1951) SCR 284. The latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this point is available in the case of K.Pandurangan etc., vs. S.S.R. Velusamy & Anr. reported as AIR 2003 SC 3318. Dealing with this aspect in the case of K.Pandurangan (Supra), the Supreme Court has given the following decision: So far as the first question as to the maintainability of the revision at the instance of the complainant is concerned, we think the said argument has only to be noted to be rejected. Under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court has suo motu power of revision, if that be so, the question of the same being invoked at the instance of an outsider would not make any difference because ultimately it is the power of revision which is already vested with the High Court statutorily that is being exercised by the High Court. Therefore, whether the same is done by itself or at the instance of a third party will not affect such power of the High Court. In this regard, we may note the following judgment of this Court in the case of Nadir Khan v. The State (Delhi Administration). ( AIR 1976 SC 2205) ?