OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed at the instance of complaint against the order of acquittal of the accused-respondents dated 6. 10. 2007 whereby, they have been acquitted of the charges under Section 147, 148, 323, 324/149, 325/149 IPC by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur. Although jurisdiction of this Court and that of the Court of Sessions Judge to call for the records in exercise of their power of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concurrent. But in view of the provisions introduced in Section 378 (1) (a), of the Code of Criminal Procedure by way Amendment Act of 2005 w. e. f. 23. 6. 2006, the remedy of appeal is available to the State against such order of acquittal even before the Court of Sessions. In view of this, therefore, though there is no bar for this Court to directly entertain the revision petition filed by the complainant against the order of acquittal passed by the Court of Magistrate/chief Judicial Magistrate, but in a given situation, doing so may give rise to an incongruous result, in that while the state has the remedy of, and may prefer, appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate/chief Judicial Magistrate/additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, and the complainant may approach this Court directly.

(2.) WHEN power of scrutiny so as to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment is available with the Court of Sessions in the appeal filed by the State, challenge to such judgment even by the complainant should ordinarily receive consideration by the same forum which is otherwise available to the State. The provisions contained in Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are similar to the one contained in Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In spite of the power available with this Court to directly entertain and decide the application for grant of anticipatory bail, this has been constantly followed as a matter of practice that the anticipatory bail application are required to be first moved before the Court of Sessions and thereafter, before this Court. Even than this Court, for extraordinary and special reasons, can directly entertain such application. Same principles, in my view, should apply to a revision petition filed at the instance of a complaint against the order of acquittal. Even though this Court has the power to entertain revision petition filed by the complainant directly before this Court but the jurisdiction under Section 397 (supra) being concurrently available to this Court as well as Court of Sessions, that remedy should ordinarily be availed of by the Complainant before the Court of Sessions in the first instance. Though at the same time, this Court may also entertain such petition moved by the complainant directly for any special and extra ordinary reason.