RAMNIWAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAMNALAL was found guilty of offences under Sections 366 and 376/511, I. P. C. and was sentenced by the learned City Magistrate to rigorous imprisonment for three years on each count. He was also sentenced to five stripes under 8. 376/511, I. P. C. He preferred an appeal and the learned Sessions Judge set aside -the conviction and sentence under 3. 366, I. P. C. The conviction under Section 376/511, I. P. C. was however maintained. The sentence of whipping was set aside and the substantive sentence of imprisonment reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 years. Then Jamnalal came up in revision to this Court (Criminal Revision No. 112 of 1952 ). The relevant portion of my order, dated 9-1-1953, reads as follows: In the event, I set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and direct him to examine the parents of the girl and Gulab Chand under Section 428, Criminal P. C. and also to give an opportunity to the defence and the prosecution to examine the Chemical Examiner on commission at Agra and to put such further question to the medical witnesses already examined in the case or to examine the Civil Surgeon, Ajmer, in the case and then to give judgment according to law.

(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge recorded the evidence of Sm. Shanti Devi and Ramniwas, the parents of the girl, Kumari Sushila. He also examined Gulab Chand and recalled two medical witnesses. Then he delivered judgment in the appeal acquitting the accused. Against that Order of acquittal dated 28-4-1953, Ramniwas, the father of the girl, has come up in revision. I nave heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned Counsel for Jamnalal and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who has opposed the revision application.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction Inasmuch as it is in compliance with this Court which was not a legal order. The learned Counsel has, however, specifically stated that he is not requesting that this Court should review its order dated 9-1-1953. No appeal, has I am informed, as yet been preferred against that order. There being no request that the Court should review its order, I am of opinion that it is not open to the learned Counsel for the applicant to challenge the legality or the correctness of the order of this Court passed on 9-1-1953.