9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Maintainability of revisional application without seeking leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Interpretation of the phrase "such an order of acquittal" in Section 417(3) concerning the right of appeal for a private complainant. 3. Distinction between acquittal by trial Court and acquittal by Sessions Court in terms of appeal rights for a private party. 4. Application of the limitation on the right of appeal conferred upon a private party in cases of acquittal. 5. Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by the court suo motu. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the accused under Sections 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 498 but acquitted him under Section 497. The accused appealed the conviction, which was overturned by the Sessions Court. The petitioner sought revision against the acquittal without seeking leave to appeal under Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court held that without appealing, revision cannot be entertained as per Section 439(5) of the Code. 2. The petitioner contended that the right of appeal under Section 417(3) is limited to acquittal by the trial Court, not the Sessions Court. The court disagreed, stating that the phrase "such an order of acquittal" in Section 417(3) encompasses acquittal by any court other than a High Court. The court emphasized that the right of appeal for a private party applies to both original and appellate orders of acquittal, with the only limitation being the requirement of special leave to appeal. 3. The interpretation of the term "Court" in Section 417(1) was crucial. Even if the Sessions Court acquits after the trial Court's conviction, the right of appeal for the complainant extends to both scenarios. The court clarified that the word "such" in Section 417(3) refers to an order of acquittal mentioned in Section 417(1), covering acquittals by any court other than a High Court, whether in original or appellate jurisdiction. 4. The court rejected the contention that the right of appeal for a private party is restricted to acquittal by the trial Court only. It emphasized that the language of Section 417 supports a broader interpretation, allowing appeal against acquittal by any court other than a High Court. Precedents from other High Courts and the Mysore High Court were cited to support this interpretation. 5. Finally, the court found no reason to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction suo motu in the case, leading to the dismissal of the revision application. The judgment highlighted the importance of following the prescribed procedures for appeals and revisions under the Criminal Procedure Code.
|
