Madras High Court
A.Rajendran vs State Rep By on 19 July, 2016
Author: G.Chockalingam
Bench: G.Chockalingam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 19.07.2016 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Crl.R.C.No.248 of 2011 A.Rajendran .. Petitioner Vs. 1.State rep by The Sub Inspector of Police Tiruchengode Town Police Station Namakkal District Cr.No.192 of 2008 2.Palaniappan 3.Thangaraj 4.Muniappan 5.Kalyanasundaram @ Kalyanam .. Respondents Prayer :- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment and acquittal dated 25.10.2010 made in STC.No.2667 of 2009 on the file Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode. For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Saravanan. For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz GA (Crl. Side) for R1. Mr.C.Kulanthaivel for R2 to R5. ORDER
The criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengode in STC.No.2667 of 2009 dated 25.10.2010, for acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 427 IPC.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the question of criminal revision would lie before this Court against the order of acquittal of the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode in STC.No.2667 of 2009 as against the complaint given by the defacto complainant/revision petitioner.
3.In the above said circumstances, it is useful to extract Sections 372 and 374 Cr.PC which read as follows :-
372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided - No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force.
[Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.] Amendment Act, 2008 - Clause 29 amends Section 372 of the Code relating to appeals from judgment or order of a Criminal Court it gives to the victim the right to prefer an appeal against any adverse order passed by the trial Court (Notes on Clauses).
374. Appeals from convictions -
(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial; may appeal to the High Court.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,
(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class or of the second class, or
(b) sentenced under section 325, or
(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session."
4.In view of the above said provisions, the person convicted before the trial court/Additional Sessions Judge has right to file appeal before the Sessions Judge and also in the case of acquittal, the appeal shall lie before the appellate Court to which the appeal ordinarily lie, the appeal has to be necessarily preferred before the concerned Sessions Court.
5.Aggrieved over the said order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, the present revision is preferred by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner has every right to prefer an appeal before the Sessions Judge of the concerned District. If the petitioner is aggrieved over the orderof the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengode, he has to prefer an appeal before the concerned Court and without following the above said procedure, the petitioner, straightaway, filed the revision petition before this Court which is not at all maintainable and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
6.In the result, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent court in accordance with law.
19.07.2016.
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No tsh To The Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode.
G.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
tsh Crl.R.C.No.248 of 2011 19.07.2016.