DHARAMAJI GANGARAM GHOLEM Vs. VITHOBA SOMA KHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 takes exception to the order passed below Ex. 1 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Criminal Revision Application No. 36 of 1986.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 - hereinafter referred to as the "complainant" - filed a private complaint in the Court of J. M. F. C. at Devrukh which was registered, as Criminal Case No. 19 of 1984. The said complaint ascribed to the petitioner-accused commission of offences punishble under Ss. 417 and 420 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on 30-6-1986. The complainant assailed the acquittal by a revision to the Sessions Court at Ratnagiri. A doubt was expressed as to the maintainability of the revision and the A. P. P. was directed to put in an appearance so that the maintainability of the revision could be decided after a proper hearing. The A. P. P. contended that the revision did not lie and in support of this contention he relied upon S. 378 (4) read with S. 401 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying upon the judgment of Sharad Manohar J. in Kokilabai w/ o Ramchandra Mahajan v. Gangadhar s/ o Shivram Mahajan reported in 1986 (2) Bombay CR 289 overrule the objection raised by the A. P. P. The revision was held to be maintainable and the petitioners were directed to be served with notices to show cause on merits.

(3.) MR. Paranjpe representing the petitioners-accused contends that the Additional Sessions Judge was in error in holding that a revision lay. In support of this submission learned Counsel relies upon the State of Bombay v. N. G. Tayawade reported in AIR 1959 Bom 94: (1959 Cri LJ 170 ). Mr. Rege for the complainant supports the view of the Additional Sessions Judge and says that the same is correct having regard to the decision in Kokilabai's case (supra ). The decision in Kokilabai's case arose upon a charge-sheet filed by the police at the instance of Kokilabai who is described by Sharad Manohar J. as the "original complainant". It was the acquittal of respondent No. 1 Gangadhar which led Kokilabai to file a revision. A contention taken in the hearing before Sharad Manohar, J. was that no revision assailing an acquittal lay to the Sessions Court. Negativing this contention the learned Judge observed:-