1956 (6) TMI 16 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Competency of a revision petition under Section 439, Criminal P.C. against an order of acquittal.
2. Interpretation of the word "may" in Section 417(3) of the amended Criminal P.C.
3. Applicability of Section 417(3) to original orders of acquittal and orders of acquittal passed by an appellate Court.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The revision petition was filed by the Chairman of the Village Panchayat against the judgment of the First Class Magistrate, setting aside the conviction of the accused under Section 168(1)(a), Mysore Village Panchayats and District Boards Act. The petitioner contended that the accused had built a shed without obtaining a license from the Village Panchayat, leading to the prosecution. However, the First Class Magistrate acquitted the accused, prompting the revision petition. The key issue was whether a revision petition under Section 439, Criminal P.C. is competent against an order of acquittal.

2. The Court examined the provisions of Section 417(3) of the amended Criminal P.C. which allows for an appeal against an order of acquittal. The section specifies that a complainant in a private case can prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal if the High Court grants special leave. The petitioner argued that the word "may" in Section 417(3) gives the option to file either an appeal or a revision petition. However, the Court clarified that the word "may" provides an option to file an appeal, not a revision petition. Additionally, Section 439(5) bars a party from filing a revision petition when an appeal is available but not preferred.

3. Another contention raised was whether Section 417(3) applies only to original orders of acquittal or includes orders of acquittal passed by appellate Courts. The Court analyzed the language of Section 417(1) and concluded that the term "such an order of acquittal" in Section 417(3) refers to orders of acquittal mentioned in Section 417(1), which encompass both original and appellate Court orders. Therefore, the Court held that the revision petition in this case was not maintainable as an appeal against the order of acquittal was available but not pursued.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the revision petition based on the interpretation of relevant provisions and the bar on filing a revision petition when an appeal against an order of acquittal is provided but not utilized.