( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition under Ss. 435 and 439 of the Crl. P. C. and is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Dharwar in SC. No. 1 of 1969 on the file of that Court. By that judgment, the learned Sessions judge acquitted the 22 persons who were the accused in that case. The petitioner who is stated to be a son of one of the persons murdered in the incident out of which the sessions case arose, prays that the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge be set aside. Respondents 1 to 22 in this revision petition were the 22 accused in that sessions case. Respondent 23 is the State of Mysore. This revision petition was filed on 7-7-1969 and was admitted on 28-7-1969. After the respondents were served with notices, Sri K. A. Swamy has appeared for respondents 1 to 22 and Sri G. Dayananda, learned Advocate has appeared for the State Public prosecutor on behalf of the State.

( 2 ) WHEN the case was taken up for arguments, Sri K. A. Swamy, learned Advocate for respondents 1 to 22, submitted that since the filing of this revision petition, an appeal which had been filed by the State against the order of acquittal made by the Sessions Court had been dismissed by the High Court and that in view of the dismissal of the said appeal, this criminal revision petition directed against the said order of acquittal need not be proceeded with and may be dismissed. He also produced a certified copy of the order made by this High Court in that Criminal Appeal, viz. , Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1969. That certified copy shows that the appeal filed by the State of Mysore against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge of Dharwar in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1969, was dismissed at the stage of admission. The order made by the High Court is as follows:"order heard the learned Counsel for the State. There are no grounds to admit the appeal. Appeal dismissed. Sd. M. Santhosh, judge, 7-10-69. Sd. K. Bhimiah, judge, 7-10-69. "

( 3 ) SRI Khazi learned Advocate for the petitioner did not agree with the above contention advanced by Sri K. A. Swamy and wanted to address arguments on the merits of the revision petition. But, on being requested by the Court to establish the maintainability of this revision petition in the face of the order of the High Court declining to admit the state's appeal against acquittal, 'the learned Advocate for the petitioner advanced the following main grounds: (1) That the order made by the High Court in the abovesaid criminal appeal was not a final order and would not operate as a bar to the continuance of this revision petition. (2) that the order made by the High Court in the said criminal appeal filed by the State, was one of summary dismissal and that, therefore, the court of revision is not precluded from going into the matter once again;and (3) that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court being a separate jurisdiction, the view taken by the High Court in appeal would not be a bar to the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

( 4 ) SRI G. Dayananda the learned Advocate appearing for the State public Prosecutor, did not take any firm stand but gave the impression that he was inclined to support the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

( 5 ) IN support of the first contention that the order made by the High court in Crl. A. No. 254 of 1969 was not of a final nature, Sri Khazi sought to place reliance on a decision of this High Court reported in State of mysore v. Biyamma, (1963) 1 Mys. L. J. 275. The finality attached to judgments of criminal courts is dealt with by S. 480 of the Cr. P. C. and the question of finality of the criminal appellate judgments of the High Courts came up for consideration in State of Mysore v. Biyamma (1); but that was in the context of the question as to whether the High Court could review its own judgment when it was found that the said judgment was based entirely on a mistaken impression of the Counsel as well as the High Court that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document