Smt. Annapurna vs State and Others

This appeal has been numbered with office objections. P.W. 53, the wife of the deceased has sought to file this appeal. The CBI filed the charge-sheet against Al to All. After committal the case was tried by the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1996 for evidence under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The Trial Court acquitted A2 to A4 and A6 to All u/s 149 read with Section 302 of Penal Code and other offences and convicted A2 to A4 and A6 to All u/s 120B read with Section 201 of the IPC.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, P.W. 53, the wife of the deceased has sought to file this appeal. This appeal is not maintainable and the proper person to file an appeal, if any, would be the CBI, who filed the charge-sheet.

Mr. Ravi B. Naik, learned Counsel for the accused relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagbir and Another Vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court has held as follows:

"Consequent upon a charge-sheet (challan) submitted by the police and a committal enquiry that followed, the two appellants and others were placed on trial before an Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozpur. The trial ended in an acquittal of all of them; and aggrieved thereby, Birbal, the complainant, filed an appeal before the High Court after obtaining leave u/s 378(4) of the Cr. P.C. In disposing of the appeal the High Court set aside the acquittal of the two appellants and convicted them under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC, while upholding the acquittal of others. Aggrieved by the order of the conviction and sentence recorded against them the appellants filed this appeal u/s 379 of the Cr. P.C.

Since the appeal must succeed on a pure question of law, we need not go into the facts of the case. Admittedly, the cognizance in the instant case was taken upon a police report u/s 190(1)(b) of the Cr. P.C. Resultantly, it was the State alone who could file an appeal in the High Court against the order of acquittal u/s 378(1) of the Cr. P.C. after obtaining leave under Sub-section (3) thereof - and not the complainant who could only file an application u/s 401 of the Cr. P.C. for revision of that order. The High Court, therefore was not at all justified in entertaining the appeal of the complainant and disposing the same in the manner aforesaid. On this score alone, we allow this appeal and restore the order of the Trial Court. The High Court will now treat the memorandum of appeal filed by the complainant as an application for revision of the order of the Sessions Judge, qua the two appellants only, and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The appellants who are in jail be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case. Appeal allowed".

In view of the pronouncement laid down by the Supreme Court the appeal is not maintainable. This will not preclude the P.W. 53 from filing a revision, if any, in accordance with law.

After pronouncement of the order, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Appa Rao for the alleged appellant submits that he may be permitted to convert this appeal into a revision. Accordingly, if the appeal is in time, it may be converted. The Registry is directed to convert it into a revision.