Madras High CourtCRL RC/301/2011dismissed

Murugan v. Meenakshi Sundaram

2016-07-19Honourable Mr Justice G. Chockalingam3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.07.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Crl.R.C.No.301 of 2011 Murugan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Meenakshi Sundaram 2.Arunachalam 3.Pachiammal 4.State rep by The Inspector of Police Kaveripattinam Police Station, Cr.No.192 of 2008 ... Respondents Prayer :- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 18.11.2010 made in SC.No.93 of 2009 on the file of the Learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.

For Petitioner : M/s.Jayasri Baskar For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Asan Mohammed for R1 to R3. Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz Government Advocate(Crl. Side) for R4

ORDER

The criminal revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. in SC.No.93 of 2009 dated 18.11.2010, acquitting the accused from the charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the question of criminal revision would lie before this Court against the order of acquittal of the accused by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in SC.No.93 of 2009 as against the complaint given by the complainant.

3.In the above said circumstances, it is useful to extract Sections 372 and 374 Cr.PC which read as follows :- "372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided - No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. [Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.] Amendment Act, 2008 - Clause 29 amends Section 372 of the Code relating to appeals from judgment or order of a Criminal Court it gives to the victim the right to prefer an appeal against any adverse order passed by the trial Court (Notes on Clauses).

374. Appeals from convictions -

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial; may appeal to the High Court.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,- (a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class or of the second class, or (b) sentenced under section 325, or (c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session." 4.In view of the above said provisions, the person convicted before the trial court/Additional Sessions Judge has right to file an appeal before the Sessions Judge and also in the case of acquittal, the appeal shall lie before the appellate Court to which the appeal ordinarily lie, the appeal has to be necessarily preferred before the concerned Sessions Court.

5.In this case, aggrieved over the order passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, the present revision is preferred by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner has every right to prefer an appeal before the Sessions Judge of the concerned District. If the petitioner is aggrieved over the said order, he has to prefer an appeal before the concerned Sessions Court and without following the above said procedure, the petitioner, straightaway, filed the revision petition before this Court which is not at all maintainable and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 6.In the result, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent court in accordance with law.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar tsh To 1.The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.

2.The Inspector of Police Kaveripattinam Police Station.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.K.V.Sridharan, Advocate, S.R.No.41407 +1cc to Mr.A.M.Asan Mohammed, Advocate, S.R.No.40447 Crl.R.C.No.301 of 2011 PA(CO) CA(29/07/2016)