Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 156 (HP)

JASPAL SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2001-07-20

M.R.VERMA

body2001
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) has been preferred by the accused-petitioners (hereafter referred to as the accused) against the order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Criminal Revision No. 5-S/l of 2000 whereby the order dated 13.3.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Solan, in case No. 29/2 of 1992 acquitting the accused has been quashed and set aside. 2. The admitted facts leading to the presentation of the present petition are that a police challan under Sections 147, 323, 324 and 506 IPC was presented against the accused in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate and on the basis of an application moved by the complainant/injured persons, the trial Court accepted the composition of the offence and acquitted the accused persons. The order of acquittal was challenged by the State in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge by way of a revision petition which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside and the case was remanded for trial afresh from the stage where it stood immediately before the passing of the order of acquittal. Feeling aggrieved, the accused persons have preferred the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and have also perused the material placed on record. 4. It is not in dispute that the accused were acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate pursuant to the provisions of Section 320 of the Code. Sub-section 8 of Section 320 of the Code which is the relevant provision reads as under: "The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded." 5. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it is unambiguously clear that composition of an offence under Section 320 of the Code shall have the effect of an acquittal. By the use of the expression "shall have the effect of an acquittal", it is clearly intended that all the provisions of the Code setting out the consequences of acquittal are automatically brought into operation once an order of acquittal is passed under the aforesaid provisions. By the use of the expression "shall have the effect of an acquittal", it is clearly intended that all the provisions of the Code setting out the consequences of acquittal are automatically brought into operation once an order of acquittal is passed under the aforesaid provisions. To hold otherwise will negate the effect and true meaning of the words "shall have the effect of acquittal." The specific effect given to the consequences of composition of an offence as acquittal necessarily mean that this acquittal is as good as acquittal on merit. Therefore, once an order of acquittal is passed under Section 320 of the Code, the order shall only be appealable under Section 378 of the Code and a revision against such an order shall not" be maintainable. 6. In view of the above discussed position in law, the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate pursuant to the provisions of Section 320 of the Code was appealable and the learned Sessions Judge below has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision against such an order. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction and, therefore, liable to be set aside. 7. As a result, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Revision dismissed. -