AFJAL HOSSAIN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions judge setting aside the order of acquittal of the petitioners for the alleged offences under section 498a/323 of the Indian Penal Code and directing their re-trial, the petitioners moved this criminal revision before this Hon'ble Court.

(2.) THE petitioners were placed on trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate, uttar Dinajpur, Raigunge to answer a charge under section 323/498a of the indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate by a judgment and order dated July 29, 2003, acquitted the petitioners of the said charges. Against the said order of acquittal the opposite party No. 2, the de facto-complainant of the case moved a criminal revision before the Sessions Court, uttar Dinajpur. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Raigunge, Uttar Dinajpur by his judgment and order dated January 21, 2005 set aside the said order of acquittal and remanded back the said case to the Trial Court for fresh trial directing that during such fresh trial the de facto -complainant be permitted to examine all the FIR named unexamined witnesses.

(3.) MR. Madhusudan Sur, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused petitioners, firstly submitted before this Court that Sessions Judge is not legally authorised to exercise his revisional power against an order of acquittal, Mr. Sur further submitted while setting aside the order of acquittal of the petitioners the learned Judge has deviated from the settled legal position as regards to the power of the Court, to interfere with an order of acquittal in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. According to Mr. Sur, the order of examination of the witnesses not examined during the original trial shall cause serious prejudice to the accused petitioners leading to failure of justice. Mr. Sur thus prayed for setting aside of the impugned order. Mr. Chittaranjan Chakraborty, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the de facto-complainant submitted before this Court that not only on facts but in law the contention of Mr. Sur is not tenable and prayed for dismissal of this revision. Whereas, Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State also pressed for dismissal of this criminal revision and submitted the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity so as to warrant interference of this Court.