S. BEEBI MARIAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS unnumbered Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner -defacto -complainant, in C.C. No. 94 of 2009 covered by Cr. No. 78 of 2004 of Ontimitta Police Station, Kadapa district and in that case, the accused 1 to 4 were put to trial after the charges framed for the offences under Sections 498 -A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act whereunder the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, by judgment, dated 19.01.2012 convicted them. Aggrieved by the same when the accused persons preferred the Crl.A. No. 14 of 2012, the learned Principal Sessions Judge. Kadapa by judgment, dated 31.01.2014, set aside the conviction judgment and acquitted the accused.

(2.) IT is aggrieved by the same, the de facto -complainant filed this revision which came up for admission by showing the State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor as 1st respondent and the accused persons 1 to 4 as respondent Nos. 2 to 5. When the revision came up for admission, heard on the application vide Crl. R.C.(SR). M.P. No. 2620 of 2014 filed by the revision petitioner to condone delay in filing the revision for entertaining the same and it came to light the facts supra. It is therefrom when the accused persons who are the respondents -2 to 5, having been served failed to attend it is taken up to decide on merits. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the very revision is not maintainable when there is appellate remedy efficaciously provided under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. as per the amended Act 5 of 2009 which came into force with effect from 31.12.2009, for the de facto -complainant to maintain the regular appeal, being the victim within the definition of Section 2(wa) of the amended Cr.P.C. and the very revision is a bar once appeal is maintainable as per Section 401 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) NOW the points that arise for consideration are: -