KADIRESAN Vs. KASIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by a complainant against the order of acquittal. The respondents who are the accused, are the inhabitants of the same locality. On 11-12-1979, the complainant gave a first information report to the Huppur police station that on that day at 6 p. m. in Huppur village when the complainant was the Headmaster of the Government High School, Huppur, the accused persons became guilty of offences under Ss.147, 341, and 355 and 323, IPC. Not satisfied with that step, the complainant went before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, and filed a complaint on 14-2-1980. After return a representation (sic), the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and the case was taken on file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18-4-1980 for offences under Ss.147, 332 and 355, IPC. The case was numbered as C.C. 113 of 1980 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai. The complainant in his complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate has mentioned about his first information report before the police, but the Magistrate instead of following the procedure under S.210, Cr. P. C. that is to say, to stay the proceedings and call for a report from the concerned police station, rested content with sending an intimation to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Huppur, which intimation sent on 18-4-1980 is said to have been received by the Police Station on 21-4-1980. The Sub Inspector of Police, notwithstanding the information which he has received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, filed his final report in the routine course before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Keeranur, stating that offences under under Ss. 147, 341 and 323, IPC appeared to have been committed by the accused. Upon the receipt of that report, D/- 30-4-1980 and received by that Magistrate on 5-9-1980 the latter took it on file on 15-5-1980 and that case was numbered as C.C. 124 of 1980. The complainant, learning about the first information report being filed before the Judicial II Class Magistrate Keeranur, approached the Sessions Court, Pudukottai, for having the case C.C. 124 of 1980 transferred from the file of the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Keeranur to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai through Cr. M.P. 551 of 1980. An order was passed by the Sessions Court on 4-9-1980 transferring the above said case to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai. The latter received the papers in C.C. 124 of 1980 on 19-9-1980. That case was renumbered as C.C. 339 of 1980 on his file. On 23-9-1980 the Magistrate passed an order clubbing the case pending already on his file upon the private complaint namely C.C. 113 of 1980 with C.C. 339 of 1980. He framed charges against the accused on 27-9-1980 for offences under Ss. 147, 332 and 335, I.P.C. During the course of the trial, the complainant revision petitioner filed three petitions. The first one, Cr. M.P. 375 of 1981 dt/- 21-2-1981, was for the purpose of examining the witnesses 3 and 9 cited in the complaint who were present on that day when the other witnesses were being examined. The second petition Cr. M.P. 383 of 1981 dt/- 23-2-1981 was for the purpose of examining one witness Susai Rayar, whose name was quoted in the complaint and to permit the counsel for the complainant to conduct the chief examination. The third petition Cr.M.P. 446 of 1981 dt/- 5-3-1981 was to keep the identity of each case apart and to record evidence separately in each case. Though all these petitions were filed before the prosecution closed its case, the trial court did not pass any orders then and there and passed orders only along with the judgment on 24-7-1981 rejecting all the petitions.

(2.) The Public Prosecutor has examined in his case 9 witnesses marked 10 exhibits and produced 2 material objects. Alter perusing the entirety of the evidence produced by the Public Prosecutor, after shutting the evidence proposed to be adduced by the complainant and after hearing the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, the trial court namely, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, by judgment dt/- 24-7-1981 acquitted all the accused of all the charges framed against them. The State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of the Magistrate. The complainant has approached this court by way of revision petition.

(3.) In view of the embargo embodied in S.401(3), Cr.P.C. this court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. What this court can do in the circumstances of the case is to remit back the case to the trial Court. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider in depth the jurisdiction of this Court while dealing with a revision petition against an order of acquittal. In those decisions reported in Chinnaswamy v. State of A. P., AIR 1962 SC 1788, Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh, 1968 Mad LJ (Cri) 399 and Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeg Ram, 1974 Mad LJ (Cri) SC 168, the Supreme Court has indicated that only in cases of gross miscarriage of justice, this Court would be justified in sending back the matter to the trial Court.