Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 457 (KER)

Surabala v. Rema

2002-07-11

M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR

body2002
Judgment :- M.R.Hariharan Nair, J. The petitioner, who was the defacto complainant in C.C. 45/1993 of the J.F.C.M. Court, Ramankary arising from Crime No. 112/1992 of Pulincunnu Police Station is aggrieved that the revision filed by her before the sessions court, Alapuzha challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in the aforesaid C.C. 45/1993 was dismissed without hearing and also mentioning that the revision was not maintainable. 2. According to Sri. J. Jose, who appeared for the petitioner, the finding that the revision was not maintainable is erroneous. As regards the findings of the learned Sessions Judge on the merit his submission is that the said findings were entered without actually hearing the petitioner and based don a perusal of records alone. The prayer is that a fresh opportunity might be given for arguing the case before the learned Sessions Judge lest a miscarriage of justice would result. 3. I have heard the Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 and the learned Government Pleader representing the 6th respondent also. 4. In paragraph n5 of the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has observed that if the judgment of the trial court were appealed against, the Appellate Court could have examined the correctness of findings of fact of the trial court; but in the case of revision petition unless there is serious illegality and unreasonableness in the findings, the court should not interfere. It was further observed that she was totally aggrieved regarding the findings of the trial court the proper forum would have been the Appellate Court. 5. There is no doubt at all that the was maintainable before the learned Sessions Judge because the inhibition under Sec. 401(4) of the Cr. P.C. applies only to revisions before the High Court and not of the Sessions court. The petitioner being the defacto complainant resulting in a final report based on which cognizance was taken did not have any right of appeal; such right being available only to the State. That being the position being the defacto complainant resulting in a final report based on which cognizance was taken did not have any right of appeal, such right being available only to the State. That being the position, it cannot be stated that the revision was not maintainable before the learned Sessions Judge. 6. That being the position being the defacto complainant resulting in a final report based on which cognizance was taken did not have any right of appeal, such right being available only to the State. That being the position, it cannot be stated that the revision was not maintainable before the learned Sessions Judge. 6. It is clear from paragraph 2 of the impugned order that the revision was disposed of without hearing the petitioner, but only on perusal of the records. The reason for the particular procedure is stated in the said paragraph as laches on the part of the petitioner herself. Whatever that be, now that the petitioner has come forward seeking a further opportunity to present the case effectively before the learned Session Judge, I think such an opportunity can justly be given especially when the petitioner’s case is that on the date of occurrence she was caught hold of by hair and dragged to a distance where she was tied down to a ‘perumaram’ tree and wrongfully confined for a considerable amount of time and also assaulted and that in spite of these the accused were left and punished. I am of the view that the above tacts and circumstances fully justify interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction available under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. 7. It is true that as observed by the learned Sessions Judge there is considerable difference between the scope of an appeal and scope of a revision. All that can be done is to dispose of the revision within the limits of powers available to the revisional court. The State has not filed any appeal before the competent court and the revision is hence maintainable. In the circumstances, the Crl.M.C. is allowed in part and the order of the Sessions Judge, Alapuzha passed in Crl. R.P. 20/1995 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Sessions Judge for passing appropriate orders after affording further opportunity to the parties to present their case.