Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 613 (MP)

Shoukilal v. State of M. P.

2000-06-29

S.S.SARAF

body2000
Heard. This is a criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., against the order dated 24.12.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sakti, district Bilaspur in criminal revision No. 177/99, quashing the order dated 7.5.1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti in Criminal Case No. 1991/98 whereby the charges under Section 406 and 427 IPC were not framed against the petitioner. The petitioner was prosecuted for offence under Section 420, 406 and 427 IPC in the Court of learned A.C.J.M. Sakti. On 7.5.1999, the learned Magistrate considered the framing of charge and found that offence under Section 420 IPC alone is made out. After observing that no offence under Section 427 and 406 IPC is made out the learned Magistrate directed that the case be put up after some time. It was also observed by the learned Magistrate that no offence under Section 379 IPC is made out against the petitioner, as it was argued on behalf of the prosecutor that offence under Section 379 IPC is also made out against him. Aggrieved by the above order, the respondent/State filed a revision petition before the Court of Sessions. The learned ASJ, Sakti by order dated 24.12.1999 passed in Criminal Revision No. 177/99 quashed the above order of the learned ACJM. Sakti and held that offence under Section 418 and 379 IPC is also prima facie made out against the petitioner and therefore directed ACJM. Sakti to frame charge for offence u/s 418 and 379 IPC, Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.12.1999, the present petition has been filed. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides. I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the sole ground that for offence under Section 420 IPC, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned ACJM. Sakti by the order passed on the same day subsequent to passing of the above order not framing charge u/s 406 and 427 IPC and therefore no revision petition was tenable against such order. He has further contended that if the respondent was aggrieved by the order of acquittal of offence u/s 420 IPC an appeal should have been filed u/s 378 Cr.P.C., before the High Court. He has further contended that if the respondent was aggrieved by the order of acquittal of offence u/s 420 IPC an appeal should have been filed u/s 378 Cr.P.C., before the High Court. A perusal of the record reveals that after observing that a case for offence u/s 420 IPC alone is made out against the petitioner, and after stopping the proceedings, the case was subsequently taken up by the ACJM and when the compromise petition was filed the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed u/s 320 for compounding the offence u/s 420 IPC and acquitted the accused/petitioner for the said offence u/s 420 IPC. However, the State did not file appeal against the order of acquittal for offence u/s 420 IPC. A careful scrutiny of the entire record clearly indicates that two orders were passed by the learned ACJM on 7.5.1999. By the first order, the learned Magistrate held that the offence made out against the petitioner is offence u/s 420 IPC alone. It can safely be inferred that by passing such order, the learned Magistrate discharged the petitioner for offence u/s 379, 406 and 427 IPC and therefore the State had a right to challenge such order by filing a revision u/s 397 Cr.P.C. The respondent/State did not assail the order of acquittal of offence u/s 420 IPC and therefore it was not necessary to file an appeal u/s 378 Cr.P.C. before this Court. A revision petition u/s 397 Cr.P.C. against the order discharging the accused is tenable under the law and therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sakti is not sustainable in law. The petition being devoid of any merit is therefore, dismissed.