Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
Gunnemeda Vijayalaxmi, W/o. Surya Prakasa Rao – Appellant
Versus
Konduru Siva Nageswara Rao, S/o Rama Koteswara Rao – Respondent
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
Once an appeal against acquittal is dismissed on merits, a subsequent revision against the same judgment cannot be entertained.
(1) No revision shall be entertained at instance of victim against order of acquittal in a case where no appeal is preferred and victim is to be relegated to file appeal.(2) Right provided to victim ....
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited; it cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction without manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice.
The right to appeal granted to victims is prospective and applies only to judgments issued on or after December 31, 2009; earlier judgments can only be challenged through revisions.
The victim's right to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal and the limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction against judgment of acquittal.
Criminal Revision - Scope of criminal revision is very limited.
The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is extremely narrow and can only be exercised in exceptional cases where there is a manifest error of law or procedure, and the High Court cannot convert....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory mandate for the State Government to issue a direction for filing an appeal against an order of acquittal, as mandated under Section 3....
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited and not to be exercised lightly; it will not intervene unless clear errors in the law or significant injustices are evident.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
