Babu Lal And Ors vs State of Rajasthan And Ors

Heard. Perused the material on record.

The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused petitioners for assailing the order dated 04.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balotra in Criminal Revision No.13/2012 (36/2011) whereby, whilst accepting the revision filed by the respondent No.2 complainant, the learned revisional court set aside the Judgment dated 24.09.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balotra in Criminal Case No.642/2009 whereby, the petitioners herein were acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 451, 323 and 341 of the IPC.

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned Judgment.

A perusal of the impugned Judgment indicates that the complainant filed the revision without impleading the accused as party respondents therein. It may be noted here that the trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the witnesses failed to turn up on numerous dates of hearing for deposing at the trial and thus, the case of the complainant remained unproved. The complaint was filed in the year 2009. The complainant was directed by the trial court to produce his witnesses on number of dates but he failed to do so. Thereupon, the trial court proceeded to acquit the accused by the impugned Judgment.

The revisional court has, while accepting the revision, set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 24.09.2011 and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh decision after providing opportunity to lead evidence to the complainant. It is apparent that the offences alleged were of trivial nature. Three years' precious time of the trial court was consumed in providing opportunities to the respondent complainant for giving evidence but he failed to do so without showing any ostensible cause or justification.

In this background, there was no rhyme or reason for the revisional court to have set aside the trial court's judgment Judgment of acquittal while accepting the complainant's revision. The impugned order, apart from being grossly illegal because the same was passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the accused, is also nothing short of gross abuse of process of law.

Hence, the same cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 04.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balotra in Criminal Revision No.13/2012 (36/2011) is quashed and set aside. Stay application is disposed of.