AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision is directed against an order dated 2631979 passed by the Forest Magistrate, Srinagar. whereby he has dismissed a complaint
under Section 5 of the Kuth Act and under Section 6 of the Forest Act, in default of appearance of the complaint and acquitted the accused.
Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of this revision on the ground that the order
of acquittal was an appeal able order. learned counsel for the State refused to concede the objection. He urged that undoubtedly an order of acquittal is appeal able but there is nothing to prevent the High Court in revision to set aside the order. In support of his argument, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and anr, (A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 1788) wherein it has been held that it is open to the High Court in revision to set aside the order of acquittal even at the instance of a private party though the State may not have thought it fit to appeal, but this jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice.
In the present case, the offence under Section 5 Kuth Act, is noncompoundable and cognizable offence and the case was tri able as a warrant
case. It is common ground that such a case could not be dismissed in default of appearance of the complaint. Thus the/order passed by the trial magistrate is manifestly illegal order and, it I may say so. an order without jurisdiction. This is a fit case in which this court should exercise its revisional powers to correct the mistake. The preliminary objection is, therefore, overruled.
The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The trial magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial as if the order had
never in fact been passed.
Counsel for the respondent states that his client has not contacted him for a long time and that he may not be able to communicate the
information to him. The trial magistrate is directed to summon the respondent.