SURABALA Vs. REMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was the defacto complainant in C.C. 45/1993 of the J.C.M. Court, Ramankary arising from Crime No. 112/1992 of Pulincunnu Police Station is aggrieved that the revision filed by her before the sessions court, Alapuzha challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in the aforesaid C.C. 45/1993 was dismissed without hearing and also mentioning that the revision was not maintainable.

(2.) According to Sri. J.Jose, who appeared for the petitioner, the finding that the revision was not maintainable is erroneous. As regards the findings of the learned Sessions Judge on the merit his submission is that the said findings were entered without actually hearing the petitioner and based don a perusal of records alone. The prayer is that a fresh opportunity might be given for arguing the case before the learned Sessions Judge lest a miscarriage of justice would result.

(3.) I have heard the Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 and the learned Government Pleader representing the 6th respondent also.