CHANGRAM MARAK Vs. PHUBILINI SANGMA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Garo Hills at Tura. The parties are Garos, the offence is insignificant, petty, tribal. It is a petty Squabble between two private individuals where no question of public interest is involved. The patent object of the action is to use the criminal Court as a weapon of oppression, instead of going to the Civil Court in civil manner for redress.

(2.) Be that as it may, in our opinion, the appeal is incompetent. Mr. B.K. Das, Senior Advocate, in fitness of his status and position has pointed out that this Court has held that no appeal against an order of acquittal is permissible in respect of trials held by the Courts dispensing Criminal Justice in Garo Hills Mr. Das points to U. Shondro Lyngkhoi Vs. U. Keni Pyrtuh Nongbasap and three others, 1970 ALR 275 (DB). The rationale of the decision is that Rule 22A of "The Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Garo Hills District, 1937" is total, absolute and exhaustive. Rule 22 provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from any sentence passed by the Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner. It is an enabling provision that permits appeals to be preferred against an order of conviction and sentence. However, Rule 22A, of the said Rules is an enabling as well as disabling provision. Rule 22A reads:

(3.) It will be seen that against the order of conviction and sentence an appeal can be preferred by any aggrieved person. Parties have absolute right, unrestricted and unchecked, without any constraint or restrain. Whereas, when we turn to Rule 22A we find that the sole authority competent to direct an appeal to be presented from an original or appellate order of acquittal, is the Governor of Meghalaya. It is the Governor who has the absolute preserve to give the direction for preferring an appeal against an order of acquittal. Conferment of power to the sole authority takes away the right of any aggrieved person to present an appeal against an order of acquittal. It follows, therefore, that when there is an order of acquittal the High Court is incompetent to entertain an appeal against an order of acquittal in the absence of a direction from the Governor to present the appeal. The relevant provisions of Code Criminal Procedure dealing with appeal against an order of acquittal would be found in Sec. 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, corresponding to Sec. 417 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (since repealed). Sec. 1(2) of the new Code reads as follows;