The State of West Bengal cannot file a revision petition against an order discharging an accused under section 245(1) Cr.P.C. in a case started on the basis of a complaint lodged by an officer of the Railway Protection Force under the provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacherjee, J.

1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated the 6th April, 1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Howrah in C case No. 94179 started on the basis of complaint lodged in connection with RPF Post Case No. 1(21) 79 dated 7.4.79 under s. 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. By his impugned order the learned Magistrate framed charge under s. 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 against the accused Ram Sankar Chowhan, but!, discharged the other accused Rupa Shaw under s. 245(1) Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order of discharge passed by the Learned Magistrate in respect of the accused Opposite Party, Rupa Shaw, the State of West Bengal has moved this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

2. At the very outset a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Sudipta Moitra, the Learned Advocate for the accused Opposite Party that the revision petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, State of West Bengal. His contention is that the case was started before the Learned Magistrate on the basis of a complaint filed by one Shri Chandrikapada Roy, Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force under the provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and as such the State of West Bengal has no locus standi to move this Court in its revisional jurisdiction against the order of discharge passed in that case by the Learned Magistrate. It is submitted by him that it is only the original complainant who alone is competent to file any revision petition before this Court if he feels aggrieved by any order passed by the Learned Magistrate in the case which was started on the basis of a complaint filed by him.

3. The question which is required to be decided at the first instance, therefore, is whether this criminal revision is maintainable at the instance of the State of West Bengal. In support of his proposition that none but the original complainant is entitled to move this Court in its revisional jurisdiction, Mr. Moitra has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Thakur Ram vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966, Supreme Court, 911. There, in connection with police report case a revision was filed by private party. In that context, the Supreme Court observed thus :-

"No doubt, the terms of s. 435 under which the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge was invoked are very wide and he could even have taken up the matter suo motu. It would, however, not be irrelevant to bear in mind the fact that the Court's jurisdiction was invoked by a private party. The criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who, according to that party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book". (See 435 referred to above relates to the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898).

4. It has been argued by Mr. Moitra that the basic principle that emerges from the said decision of the Supreme Court is that the revisional jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked by a party other than the complainant in a complaint case or except by State in a case started on a police report. I have given my anxious consideration to this argument advanced by Mr. Moitra, but I am sorry that I cannot subscribe to the same. On the other hand, it cannot escape notice that the Supreme Court "in the said decision has clearly observed that barring a few exceptions in criminal matters the party which is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large. Even if the said decision of the Supreme Court is considered an autho