Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 401 (MAD)

M. Narayanappa v. Madevappa & Others

2010-01-29

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2010
Judgment :- Petitioners are the defacto complainants in C.C.Nos.35 and 38 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai and respondents 1 to 3 in Crl.R.C.35 of 2005 and respondents 1 to 8 in Crl.R.C.No.38 of 2005 are the accused. 2. A final report was submitted by the fourth respondent-Police against the respondents 1 to 3 in Crl.R.C No.35 of 2005, on which cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate for offences under Sections 341, 324, 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate by judgment dated 25.04.2005 found the first respondent guilty under Sections 341, 326 and 506(ii) I.P.C and the respondents 2 and 3 under Sections 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. 3. Further, respondent-Police filed a final report against the respondents 1 to 8 in Crl.R.C.No.38 of 2005, on which cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate for offences under Sections 147, 148, 448 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate by judgment dated 25.04.2005 found the respondents 1 to 9 guilty under Sections 147, 148, 448 and 506(ii) I.P.C. 4. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate released all the accused on admonition under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioners being the defacto complainants are before this Court with these revisions challenging the said order of the learned Magistrate releasing the respondents in both cases under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. 5. In my considered opinion, these Revisions are not at all maintainable in view of Section 11(2) of the Act which is to the following effect: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code where an order under Section 3 or Section 4 is made by any Court trying the offender(other than a High Court) an appeal shall lie to the Court to which the appeals ordinarily lie from the sentence of the former court." 6. It is needless to point out that under Section 401(4) of the code of Criminal Procedure revision may be entertained if only there is no appeal remedy available to the aggrieved. Here, in this case, since such a remedy is available for the petitioner, and no such appeal was preferred, these revisions are not at all maintainable and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, these revisions fail and they are accordingly, dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to prefer appeal, if so advised. Here, in this case, since such a remedy is available for the petitioner, and no such appeal was preferred, these revisions are not at all maintainable and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, these revisions fail and they are accordingly, dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to prefer appeal, if so advised. If any such appeal is filed, the period spent between 08.07.2005 and 29.01.2010 on these revisions shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation.