AHAMMED PILLAY Vs. DANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioners are accused in C. C. No. 302 of 1982 on the file of the Second Class Magistrate's Court, Kattakada. They were charged for offences punishable under S.143, 147, 149, 447 and 427 IPC. After considering the evidence in the case, the Trial Court found that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing that the petitioners have committed offences with which they are charged. The State which charge sheeted the case, did not tile any appeal against the order of acquittal. However, P. W. 1 filed a revision before the Court of Sessions, Trivandrum. The Sessions Court set aside the order of acquittal and sent back the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the said order the accused have filed this revision.

(2.) It was strenuously contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that the Sessions Court committed grave illegality and irregularity in setting aside the order of acquittal on a revision filed by the de facto complainant in a case charge sheeted by the Police and ordering retrial by the Trial Court. The learned Counsel also brought to my notice a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Bansi Lal and Others v. Laxman Singh ( AIR 1986 SC 1721 ). That was a case where the appellants were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi with a charge of murder under S.302, read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The son of the deceased victim of the murder preferred a criminal revision before the High Court of Delhi under S.397 and 401 Cr. P. C. challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of acquittal and remanded the case to the Trial Court for fresh trial. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the interference by the High Court in the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge is clearly illegal. His Lordship v. Balakrishna Eradi J. speaking for the Bench observed as follows:

(3.) In the instant case the Trial Court has pointed out various grounds for coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established that the accused has committed offences with which they are charged. On analysing the evidence of the case, the Trial Court was satisfied that the prosecution has not succeeded in bringing home the offences of the accused. The learned Magistrate has pointed out that in the police charge what was alleged was that Al drove away the tapping workers whereas what was spoken to in the witness box was that all of them drove away. Some of the witnesses cited by the prosecution turned hostile. According to the learned Magistrate there is no proof of identification of the accused and the testimony of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 is silent in regard to the same. It is having taken into account all those circumstances that the Trial Court passed an order of acquittal of the accused.