Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1963 (MAD)

P. Velusamy Gounder v. Ramakrishnan & Others

2006-08-04

S.ASHOK KUMAR

body2006
Judgment :- (Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order of acquittal dated 10.03.2004 made in C.A.No.2 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Court, Erode reversing the conviction imposed in the judgement dated 30.12.2003 made in C.C.No.5 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi.) This revision petition is filed against the acquittal of the accused, who were charged for the offence under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477A I.P.C. Earlier, the accused were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi in C.C.No.5 of 1998 and were convicted for the offence under Section 409 I.P.C to undergo Rigourous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I., for the offence under Section 468 I.P.C to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I., for the offence under Section 471 I.P.C one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo three months R.I., for the offence under Section 477-A to undergo R.I. for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I. Aggrieved over the same, they preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.2 of 2004 before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. Learned First Additional sessions Judge, Erode, who heard the appeal allowed the same and acquitted the accused and directed to refund the fine paid by the accused. 2. Aggrieved over the acquittal of the accused this revision petition is filed by P.W.8. 3. Before going into the merits of the case, we have to go into the maintainability of this revision. P.W.8 claims to be trustee of the temple for which there is no material and that was also not accepted by the trial Court and also by the First Appellate Court. Therefore, P.W.8 is only a third party who is not a directly affected party or an aggrieved person. 4. In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2002 Cri.L.J.3788, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "12. Therefore, P.W.8 is only a third party who is not a directly affected party or an aggrieved person. 4. In Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2002 Cri.L.J.3788, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "12. We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in reappreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the information under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub Section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional court, prohibiting it from convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. if the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of the conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a retrial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decision of this court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. (See AIR 1951 SC 196 D.STephens Vs. Nosibolla; AIR 1962 SC 1788 : K.C.Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; (1973) 2SCC 583: Akalu Ahir and other Vs. Ramdeo Ram: AIR 1975 SC 1854 : Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju and others Vs. Bonapalli Peda Appadu and another and AIR 1968 SC 707 : Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. (See AIR 1951 SC 196 D.STephens Vs. Nosibolla; AIR 1962 SC 1788 : K.C.Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; (1973) 2SCC 583: Akalu Ahir and other Vs. Ramdeo Ram: AIR 1975 SC 1854 : Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju and others Vs. Bonapalli Peda Appadu and another and AIR 1968 SC 707 : Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh." 5. In Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (Delhi) Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 1997 Cri.L.J.3242, the Delhi High Court held that, "21. Irrespective of the reference to aforesaid commentaries cited by Mr.Bhatia I find that in addition to the above discussion a reference to various ruling including AIR 1966 SC 911 ; (1966 CriLJ 700); (1992)4 SCC 653 ; (1992 AIR SCW 3133); (1991) 3 SCC 756 ; 1996 (8) SCale 383 ; 1934 Cri LJ 320; 1980 Cri LJ (NOC) Delhi 82; 1990 Raj LR 131: 1990 Cri LJ 2184 and para 90 of 1987 (1) SCC 288: (1987 Cri LJ 793) would lead to the conclusion that the state is the master of prosecutions and that it would be extremely unsafe to accord locus standi to a third party to file a Criminal Revision Petition against judicial orders. It will be unwise and unsafe to entertain Criminal Revision Petition by third parties. The petitioner is neither the complainant nor aggrieved party. As such, I hold that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Criminal Revision Petition." 6. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, P.W.8 could be only treated as a third party. Though he is a prosecution witness, he is not a directly affected person. The case is not initiated on a private complaint but by the police i.e., the State. Therefore, this Criminal revision filed by P.W.8 who is the revision petitioner, has no locus standi to file this revision petition and The same is to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.