(1.) On a complaint made by the 1st respondent the petitioner was charged for an offence under section 354, Indian Penal Code, 1860, by prosecution in C.C.No.72/82 on the file of the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Keeranur. The learned Magistrate after trial acquitted the petitioner. As against the order of acquittal the complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition No.17 of 1983, on the file of the Sessions Judge of Pudukkottai. The learned Sessions Judge after perusing the records set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and remitted the matter back to the Magistrate, directing him to examine the case and see whether the offence complained of will be one under section 376 read with section 511, Indian Penal Code, 1860. This Crl. Mis. Petition filed by the accused against the order of the learned Sessions Judge.
(2.) The facts of the case are briefly as follows According to P.W.1, a girl aged 14 years, when she was going to her school on 20th January, 1982 at 1.30 p.m., the petitioner who is a teacher, called her, dragged her by hands, made her lie down by pressing her hip and outraged her. The police after investigation registered a case under section 354, Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the learned Magistrate after examining the victim as P.W.1 and her mother as P.W.2 came to the conclusion that the offence is not made out and acquitted the petitioner. As against the said order a revision petition was filed before the Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai in Crl.R.C.No.17/83 in which the learned Sessions Judge after perusing the records disagreed with the finding of the learned Magistrate and came to the conclusion that the matter will have to be gone into afresh. While coming to the conclusion the learned Sessions Judge felt that the offence may fall under section 376 read with section 511, Indian Penal Code, 1860, and also directed the lower Court to examine the same.
(3.) The petitioner contends that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable for the following reasons: