RAMDAS LAHUJI POTE Vs. WARLU TAIRAM FALKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the complainant in criminal case No.174/87 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the accused in the said criminal case. THE learned Magistrate took cognisance against the said three accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 read with Sec.34 of I.P.C. as per the final report laid by the police. After trial learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. THE first informant-injured preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge as criminal revision No.445/94 along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay in submitting the revision.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the said revision was filed beyond 90 days prescribed under article 131 of the Limitation Act. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the writ petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause for condoning the delay. He has also dismissed the revision as, according to the learned Sessions Judge, an appeal was maintainable before the High Court against the acquittal.

(3.) THE first argument that the learned Sessions Judge also has to be a party to the proceedings cannot be accepted because what is invoked is only the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In Muhammed Enamul Haque-V-Muhammad Hussain (Notes of Cases - 1 of 1968 Mh.L.J.), the Supreme Court has held that when no writ is sought to be issued and only the power of superintendence vested in the High Court under Article 227 is invoked the authorities or the Tribunal whose orders are challenged are not necessary parties. It is further observed in the said decision that ".... THEre is neither practice, nor binding authority to support the contention that in a proceeding for an order under Article 227 of the Constitution it is necessary to implead the Court or Tribunal against the order for which the proceeding is initiated in the High Court .....". THErefore, the said argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, in the circumstance, cannot be sustained.