BHAGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by Bhagat Ram against the order of the Special Judge, Jind, dated 28th July, 1984, vide which the petitioner was ordered to be charged under sections 420 and 163 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this petition are as follows. The petitioner and his co-accused Deva are alleged to have committed offences under sections 420 and 163 I.P.C in April, 1977. This matter was reported to the police by Jati complainant on 29th October, 1979, and the case against the petitioner and his co-accused was registered on 29th March, 1980. The challan was put in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Narwana. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 24th April, 1982, gave the benefit of doubt to the petitioner and acquitted him of the charges. However, the co-accused of the petitioner was held guilty had was convicted and sentenced under sections 420 and 163 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the order of his conviction and sentence, Deva Singh went up in appeal in the Court of Session. The appeal came up for hearing before Shri M.K. Bansal, Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. The main argument raised by Devan Singh appellant, co-accused of the petitioner, was that since an offence under section 163 of the Indian Penal Code was triable exclusively by the Special Judge so the trial of the case by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class was illegal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal, set asdie the conviction of Deva Singh appellant and observed that the acquittal of the appellant would ot debar the prosecution from presenting a fresh challan against him before the competent Court. The prosecution then submitted a challan against the petitioner and his co-accused Deva Singh under Sections 420 and 163 of the Indian Penal Code on 12th March, 1983, in the Court of the Special Judge. The petitioner raised an objection before the learned Special Judge that since the Magistrate was competent to try an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code of which the petitioner had been acquitted, so his acquittal of the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code became final and that as far as the offence under section 163 of the Indian Penal Code was concerned the trial for the same was barred by limitation under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the learned Special Judge vide his order dated 28th July, 1984, overruled the objection. The petitioner has thus come upto this Court in revision against the aforesaid.

(3.) MR . Hari Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended in the first instance that since the petitioner was acquitted by the trial Magistrate and no appeal or revision was preferred against the order of acquittal, that order became final and that the petitioner cannot be retired. But I do not find any substance in this contention because the trial of the petitioner under section 163 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Magistrate was not a trial by a competent Court since the trial Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to try an offence under section 163 of the Indian Penal Code.