PYARELAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the accused for a revision of the appellate order of learned Additional Sessions Judge No 1, Jodhpur, dated October 23, 1972, by which he has sent the case back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Phalodi for "trial in accordance with law. "

(2.) THE allegation against the accused Pyarelal was that while Sub Divisional Magistrate Roshan Lal was holding his court on September 4, 1972, and was dealing with a criminal case, he entered the court room at about 3. 15 p. m. and treated the Sub Divisional Magistrate in an uncivilised manner and used indecent language. THE learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under the provisions of sec. 480 Cr. P. C. and sentenced the accused to a fine of 200/ -. He did not, however, record a finding about the commission of an offence under any particular provision of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IF the learned Judge had appreciated his limitations, as the court of appeal, under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 486, he would have realised that all that was permissible for him was to alter or reverse the finding of conviction, or to reduce or reverse the sentence appealed against. He has however accepted the appeal and set aside the sentence on account of the illegality in the trial (mentioned above ). In law, that was really an order of reversal of the finding of conviction as well as the sentence appealed against, within the meaning of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 486, because it was not permissible for the learned Judge to make any other order on the view he had taken about the illegality of the trial. There is therefore justification for the argument that the impugned judgment of the appellate court has the effect of acquitting the accused of the offence of which he was convicted by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. As that acquittal has been set aside, and remains in force, the accused is not liable to be tried again for same offence by virtue of sec. 403 Cr. P. C.