JHANTOO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jhantoo and five others have preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 1st June, 2002 passed by learned Special Judge/A.D.J. Azamgarh in Criminal Revision No. 331 of 1999, Kamal Prasad v. State of U.P. and Ors. whereby the order dated 13th October, 1999 of acquittal thereby acquitting the present revisionist passed by Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh in Criminal Case No. 1418 of 1996 initiated upon the complaint of respondent No. 2, Kamla Prasad for the offences under Sections 147 and 323 I.P.C. is set aside and the case is remanded for trial a fresh.

(2.) At the time of hearing of this revision, no one appeared on behalf of the revisionist as well as on behalf of respondent No. 2 despite notice to them while learned AGA remained present, who is heard on this revision on the grounds mentioned in the memo of this revision.

(3.) In the grounds of the revision, it is mentioned that the impugned order is illegal because in view of specific provisions of Section 378(4) Cr.P.C, the order of acquittal dated 13th October, 1999 passed by learned Magistrate upon complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 could have been challenged only by filing an appeal. Respondent No. 2/the complainant had challenged the acquittal order in Criminal Revision No. 331 of 1999 under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge while in such case the revision against an order of acquittal is clearly barred as per provisions under Section 401(4) Cr.P.C. but even then the learned Sessions Judge wrongly entertained the revision and allowed it by way of impugned order thereby committing gross irregularity and illegality. Apart from it, the learned Sessions Judge was not empowered to reasses, revaluate and reapprise the evidence and to interfere with the evidence of facts arrived at by the learned Judicial Magistrate.