Once an appeal against acquittal is dismissed on merits, a subsequent revision against the same judgment cannot be entertained.

ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

De-facto complainant preferred the revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) questioning acquittal of respondent Nos.1 and 2 by the judgment dated 11.06.2008 in Sessions Case No. 507 of 2007 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. Sri Ismail, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that even though the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on merits, it would not take away the right of the revisionist in preferring the revision and arguing the matter on merits.

4. Smt. Sumathi, learned counsel representing Smt. Harija Akkineni, counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 submitted that the revision is not maintainable in the view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Ramachandran v. V.N. Rajan, [(2009) 14 SCC 569]; the registry should have tagged this revision petition along with appeal, when the appeal was heard by the learned Division Bench and urged to dismiss the revision as not maintainable.

5. Mr K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also submits in similar lines with the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

7. Now the small point for consideration is:

Whether this revision case is maintainable in view of dismissal of the Appeal, on merits, preferred by the State against the judgment in S.C.No.507 of 2007 dated 11.06.2008?

8. Before going into the merits of the matter, it is brought to the notice of this court that the state had preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment before the Division Bench and the said appeal was dismissed on merits. In that event, indeed, pendency of this revision ought to have been brought to the notice of the learned Division Bench and this revision ought to have been tagged with the Criminal Appeal, when the Criminal Appeal was coming for disposal.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Ramachandran v. V.N. Rajan at para Nos. 15 to 24 and 32 held as follows:

“15. We cannot find fault with the learned Single Judge in proceeding ahead with the revision as it was never brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the appeal against the same judgment which was impugned in the revision had already been filed. It was for the appellant-accused to point out that on the date when the revision was heard the fate of the criminal appeal filed impugning the same judgment was sealed because of the refusal on the part of the Division Bench to condone the delay. In fact, it was up to the Government Pleader who was a common party in both the revision and the appeal to point out to the learned Single Judge about the dismissal of the condonation of delay application. Very strangely, the Government Pleader did not do that.

16. Again, we are at a loss to understand as to how the criminal revision was left out and was not mentioned before the Division Bench deciding the question of condonation of delay in appeal which was filed against the same judgment. In this appeal, however, the first question which has been raised is about the dismissal of the statutory appeal preferred by the State and its effect on the pending revision. The appellant-accused, however, has conveniently avoided to state in the special leave petition as to when he came to know about the dismissal of the condonation of delay application in filing the appeal and how. We cannot, therefore, find fault with the learned Single Judge's judgment who was never apprised of the dismissal of the condonation of delay application.

17. Similarly, since the order refusing to condone the delay is not challenged before us, it will not be possible for us to go into that aspect also. But we must observ