DINABANDU TALUKDAR Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR HIMATSHINGKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision from an order of acquittal tells many stories. Silently it speaks about the present health of our justice delivery system, gives in14ing about the torch bearers responsible to guide the destiny of the distressed justice seekers and also about the present environs in our society. If the system plods its weary way the end of the system is not for off. However, we are optimists and feel that if all put their hearts to serve the cause of the country and its people, just turn our mind a bit more to redeem the distressed thriving for justice, the system will gain anew its past glory.

(2.) What is the revision about and who is the revisionist Is it the same old story of our in the "slow motion justice and long distance irrigation The accused were acquitted of the charge under section 188, I.P.C., an offence for dis-obedience to order duly promulgate, by the public servant. A proceeding under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for short "the Code" instituted by the petitioner way back in 1977 against the second party, a proceeding was drawn up, the disputed land was directed to be attached by the Magistrate (Executive) in purported exercise of power under section 146 of "the Code". The police was directed to attach the land in question. The order was allegedly promulgated on 92.77. The four opposite parties include (1) Santosh Kumar Himatsinka; (2) a driver of a motor truck, his wife and another truck driver. It was alleged that in violation of the order the second party men had completed the boundary wall of the disputed land, which had been left half done. The subject matter of dispute is a town land. It is strange but true that the valuable town land is still under attachment. It is lying vacant, barren and unutilised for over 9 long years. Is it providing speedy justice is not it a national loss to keep vacant, barren and unutilised a valuable town land allegedly attached by the order of the court The records of the proceedings were called in connection with the criminal case which concluded in 1983 and those have been drawn to this Court in connection with this revision from the order of acquittal. In heartless slowness the case under section 188, I.P.C. proceeded and this revision is pending since 1983. This morbid picture we get. It is anybody's guess to assume the prevailing debility of the whole system where with immunity by adopting ingenous methods a party can stall a proceeding and section 145 of "the Code" for about 10 years. The land was attached but the constructions on the land, allegedly made by the petitioner, were exempted from the rigour of attachment by the court, and, therefore; the petitioner is possessing the structures and virtually enjoying the, disputed land. He stands, to gain, if the proceeding lingers and so it lingered.

(3.) Who is the revisionist The complaint was in respect of an offence under section 188, I.P.C. alleging contempt of lawful authority of the public servant, and, under section 195(1)(a) of "the Code" no Court could take cognizance of the offence except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, and, therefore, the Executive Magistrate instituted the complaint in writing. The Executive Magistrate, the concerned public servant, was not aggrieved by the order of acquittal and did not preforany appeal or revision against the order of acquittal but the petitioner who could not have instituted the case has brought the revision. A revision is the continuation of the original case and only those who initiate a case or who could initiate the case can ask for relief in appeal or revision. The petitioner was ineligible to institute the case and, therefore, he is incompetent to file this revision. It requires consideration. The question shall be considered in due course. At any rate this is a relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration while considering the power and scope of this court to entertain a revision from an order of acquittal.