JUDGMENT :- This criminal appeal is filed by the de facto complainant against the order of acquittal, dated 14.11.2002 passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar in SC No.110 of 2001.

2. The de facto complainant is the elder brother of the deceased-Rani. The first respondent is the mother-in-law, second respondent is the husband and the third respondent is the father-in-law of the deceased. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the charges under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC and were acquitted of the said charges by judgment, dated 14.11.2000 in SC No.110 of 2001. The State did not prefer any appeal, but the de facto complainant preferred the appeal against the order of the acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that against the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in a case which was instituted upon a police report there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code enabling the de facto complainant to prefer an appeal against the said acquittal.

4. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, the appeal being not maintainable, is liable to be dismissed at the threshold without going into merits of the case.

5. As against this, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/de facto complainant contended that the de facto complainant can also prefer an appeal and in the alternative his submission is that even if the de facto complainant prefers an appeal out of mistake, the same cannot be rejected in limni, but this Court can treat the said appeal as revision as having been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. and the same can be disposed of as criminal revision case on merits.

6. The legal position on the issue is no longer res integra. In a case instituted upon a police report, the State alone can file an appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge and not the de facto complainant.

7. In Jagbir and another v. State of Punjab, 1998 (2) ALD (Crl.) 673 = AIR 1998 SC 3130, the apex Court held as follows :

"When the cognizance of the case was taken upon a police report under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. it is the State alone which could file an appeal in the Court against the order of acquittal under Section 3 78(1) of Cr.P.C. after obtaining leave under subsection (3) thereof and not the complainant who could only file an application under Section 401 of 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 the 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."

8. Therefore, though the appellant in the present case who is the de facto complainant and the brother of the deceased cannot file an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, he can certainly file a revision under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, however, the appellant/de facto complainant filed an appeal by mistake of understanding of the relevant legal provisions instead of filing revision, which Section 401 Cr.P.C. enables him in view of the judgment above referred, though wrongly an appeal has been filed by the de facto complainant, it cannot be rejected outright but this Court can treat the same as revision filed under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. and dispose of the same on merits.

9. Nevertheless, the petition challenging the order of acquittal filed by the de facto complainant is registered as an appeal, it will hereinafter will be referred as 'revision' since it has been treated so by this Court and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document