AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Balasubramanian, J.—These two revisions arise in the following manner. C.C. No. 396/95 and C.C. No. 395/95 were taken on the file
of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras. The petitioner in each of these revisions (petitioner is the same) is the third
accused in the said calendar cases. Each of the calendar case was taken on file for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. By order
dated 17.11.195 in each of the calendar case, the learned trial Magistrate noticing the absence of the complainant as well as the counsel and also
noticing the absence of the accused acquitted the accused muter section 256(1) Cr. P.C. There were two revisions before the learned VII
Additional Sessions Judge, Madras at the instance of the complainant and they were taken on file as Crl.R.C. No. 169/95 and Crl.R.C. No.
168/95. Despite objection taken by the third accused/petitioner before this court, that the revisions against the order of acquittal are not
maintainable before the court of Sessions, the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge allowed both the revisions and thereby set aside the order of
acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate in each calendar case. The correctness of those two orders passed by the learned VII Additional
Sessions Judge is challenged in these two revisions before this court.
The respondent in each revision/complainant before the trial court had been served and yet one has neither appeared in person nor through her
counsel. Therefore, I directed the learned Government Advocate to take notice and assist the court and accordingly Mr. N.R. Elango, learned
Government Advocate appeared and assisted this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice a decision of this court in the
case of Krishnamoorthy and Elumalai, In re (1983 L.W.Crl. 166) wherein it had been categorically laid down that the court of Sessions has no
power to entertain a revision against acquittal in a case arising out of a private complaint when there is an effective remedy of an appeal against
acquittal. When the law is clearly laid down by the Division Bench of this court, especially when it was brought to the notice of the VII Additional
Sessions Judge, Madras I am at a loss to understand as to why the learned Sessions Judge proceeded with the revisions resulting in the order
under challenge. In view of the VII Additional Sessions Judge having no jurisdiction at all in a matter like this, any order passed by him in such
revisions cannot be sustained and accordingly they are set aside.
In the result, the orders of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Madras in Crl.R.C. Nos. 169/95 and 168/95 are set aside and the
original orders of the learned trial Magistrate in C.C. No. 396/95 and C.C. No. 395/95 are restored as far as the petitioner in each case is
concerned. Accordingly, both the revisions are allowed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 3559 to 3562/96 are dismissed.