ASHOK Vs. RAMSEWAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief relevant facts of the case leading to the filing of this revision petition are thus : The petitioners lodged the first information report against the non-petitioners No. 1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 307 and 324/34, I. P. C. , concerning the incident that took place on 29-1-88. The Police conducted investigation in the case and thereafter charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the concerning Magistrate wherefrom the case was committed to the Court of Session. On the basis of the prima facie facts and evidence available on record the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that no offence under Section 307, I. P. C. , was made out and, therefore, he remanded the case to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the trial of the non-petitioners No. 1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 326, 324 and 201, read with Section 34, I. P. C. and Section 30 of the Arms Act. The prosecution adduced evidence in the Court of the learned trial Magistrate against the non-petitioners. The learned trial Magistrate, on the evidence adduced before him, came to the conclusion that no offence was made out against the non-petitioners and, therefore, he acquitted them.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the State did not choose to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate. The petitioners herein have filed this criminal revision petition against the aforesaid judgment of acquittal dated 29-1-99 in Cr. Case No. 80/88 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sewda.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the non-petitioners have raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners, who are private parties, have no locus standi to move this Court by filing this criminal revision because the aggrieved party was the State who has not chosen to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal. I am of the view that though there is no bar as such for the private parties to prefer a revision petition under these circumstances, but the jurisdiction in this regard has got to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears that there has been some miscarriage of justice on account of a manifest error on a point of law committed by the learned trial Court. This approach gets more strengthened by the provision engrafted under Sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure forbidding a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Thus, it falls upon this Court to see that the finding of acquittal is not converted into a finding of conviction indirectly by passing an order of remand directing for retrial of the case, when it itself is forbidden to convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction.