SECY., MARKET COMMITTEE Vs. LALIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common question whether appeals are maintainable or not, is involved in this appeal and Criminal Appeal Nos. 387 to 391 of 2003, and is being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of determining the aforesaid question are that the complainant. Secretary, Market Committee, Mandi, H.P. (hereafter referred to as the complainant) filed six complaints against the respondents-accused (hereafter referred to as 'the accused') under Section 32(1) of the H.P. Agricultural Produce Market Act, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, and all the complaints resulted in conviction of the accused persons. In the appeals preferred by the accused persons, the learned Sessions Judge set aside their conviction and sentence and acquitted., the accused persons.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the complainant filed six revision petitions in this Court. in which the question regarding maintainability of the revision petitions arose as the remedy of the complainant was to file appeals against the acquittal. Faced with the situation, the complainant filed applications under Section 401(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter referred to as 'the Code'), i.e. Cr.M.P. Nos. 436 to 400 and 444 of 2003, in each case for treating revision petitions as appeals. All such applications were allowed by this Court vide its order dated 22.8.2003 passed on each application. The revision petitions, thus, came to be treated as Criminal Appeals and have been listed for admission.