Otar Mal vs Bhika Ram and Others

B.R. Arora, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated December 17, 1988, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class Sumerpur by which the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents Bheeka Ram and Juharmal.

Accused Bheeka Ram and Juharmal were tried by the learned Magistrate for offences Under Sections 3/25, 27, 29 and 30 of the Indian Arms Act, on the basis of the report of Chain Singh and Dheera Ram. The learned trial Court, after trial, acquitted the accused-respondents on the ground that there is no reliable evidence on record, on the basis of which accused Juharmal and Bheeka Ram could be convicted. The learned lower Court, also, came to the conclusion that the sanction, as required u/s 39 of the Indian Arms Act has not been exhibited and approved. According to the learned Magistrate, as the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond doubt against the accused respondents Bheeka Ram and Juharmal, he, therefore, by his judgment dated December 17, 1988, acquitted the accused respondents. It is against this order that the present petitioner, who was neither a complainant nor was a witness but who is a stranger, has filed this criminal revision.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the learned Counsel for the accused-respondents.

It is not in dispute that the proceedings Under Sections 3/25, 27, 29 and 30 of the Indian Arms Act were not initiated on the information supplied by the petitioner nor was he an eyewitness to the occurrence. He is a stranger to the proceedings. The criminal proceedings are not to be taken just the wreck a private vengeance. The revisional jurisdiction, conferred upon the High Court, is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private party against an order of acquittal, against which the State has a right to file appeal u/s 378, Cr.P.C. This jurisdiction cannot be invoked or used merely because the lower Court has taken a wrong view of law or has misappreciated the evidence on record. When revision-petitioners is neither an informant nor a witness, he cannot be permitted to challenge the order of acquithal as a private party, which order has been passed by the trial court after properly considering the evidence on record.

Consequently, the revision petition has got no force and is here by dismissed.