Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a complainant could maintain a revision against an acquittal when an appeal lay under Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and no such appeal had been brought, and whether the expression "such an order of acquittal" in Section 417(3) covered an appellate acquittal by the Sessions Court.
Analysis: Section 439(5) bars revision where an appeal lies and is not brought by the party who could have appealed. In a case instituted on a private complaint, the complainant's remedy against an acquittal is an appeal under Section 417(3) with special leave. The expression "such an order of acquittal" in Section 417(3) refers back to the acquittal described in Section 417(1) and therefore includes an original as well as an appellate order of acquittal passed by any court other than the High Court. The complainant therefore ought to have pursued the statutory appeal and could not bypass that remedy by revision. No ground was shown for the Court to invoke suo motu extraordinary jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The revision was not maintainable and the application failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appeal lies from an acquittal in a complaint case, the complainant cannot invoke revisional jurisdiction instead, and the right of appeal under Section 417(3) extends to an appellate acquittal as well as an original acquittal.