RAMCHAND Vs. CHAUTHMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application filed on behalf of Ramchand Sonar who had filed a complaint in the Court of Mr. J. L. Mishra. Magistrate 1st Class, Drug, on 7th October 1926, against Chauthmal under Section 500, I.P. C The learned Magistrate, found the offence proved and convicted Chauthmal under Section 500, I.P.C. On appeal, the learned Session Judge held that his assertions made in the Exs. P-1, 2 and 4 were true, that they were defamatory, but the case of the appellant fell under Excep. 10. Section 499, I.P.C. and, therefore, acquitted Chauthmal.

(2.) THERE is no doubt that this Court has urisdiction under Section 439, Criminal P.C., to set aside the order of acquittal, but this Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and, therefore, has no alternative, but to order a retrial, in a case, in which this Court is of opinion that the order of acquittal is wrong. It is the settled practice of this Court not to interfere in revision at the instance of a private prosecutor, except in those cases in which the Local Government is not likely to appeal from the order of acquittal, on account of the nature of the offence and the offence of defamation is one of those offences, in which the Local Government is not likely to appeal. This Court, sitting as a Court of revision and, not as an appellate Court, will not go into facts, and as pointed out by Kinkhede, A.J.C. in Sher Khan v. Anwar Khan A.I.R. 1927 Nag. 170 will ordinarily confine its interference to cases o? exceptional circumstance or whore there is error of law, and it will not interfere with the acquittal unless the error has been illegal or so radically and incurably irregular as in fact to have occasioned a failure of justice.