PARA KANAKAN Vs. AMIR BI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I assume that the notice of appeal was not served on the complainant. Nor was it served upon the officer appointed under Section 422, Cr.P.C. It is to he regretted that the provision is so often disregarded, but it is settled law that the High Court ought not to interfere in revision with an order of acquittal unless interference is urgently demanded in the interests of public justice, Faujdar Thakur V/s. Kasi Chowdhury 27 Ind. Cas. 186 : 42 C. 612 : 19 C.W.N. 184 : 21 C.L.J. 53 : 10 Cr. L.J. 122, Vellayanamhalam V/s. Solai Servai 30 Ind. Cas. 152 : 39 M. 505 : 28 M.L.T. 092 : (1915) M.W.N. 540 : 10 Cr. L.J. 600, Sankaralinga Mudaliar V/s. Narayana Mudaliar 68 Ind. Cas. 615 : 43 M.L.J. 369 : 10 L.W. 413 : (1922) M.W.N. 579 : 31 M.L.T. 342 : 23 Cr. L.J. 583 : (1922) A.I.R. (M.) 502 : 45 M. 913. I accepted this view in the judgment I delivered this morning [Mohamed Mustafa V/s. Shanmuga Thevan 83 Ind. Cas. 349. lam not satisfied that in the-present case any injustice has been occasioned. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in a very full judgment has dealt with the question from various stand-points and has come to the conclusion that in any event the accused had no dishonest intention and that there was a bona fide assertion of a claim of right.

(2.) THE revision case fails and is accordingly dismissed.