Back
Manipur High Court
C. JAGANNADHACHARYULU, J.
Sahodari Sonar
Versus
Kailash Ram Teli
Criminal Appeal Case No. 6 of 1966
Decided On : 28-02-1967
CRIMINAL APPEAL - ACQUITTAL - LIMITATION - REVIEW OF PREVIOUS ORDER - JURISDICTION - PRIVATE COMPLAINT - COGNIZANCE - APPEAL OR REVISION - SECTION 417(3) CR. P.C. - SECTION 561A CR. P.C. - SECTION 367 CR. P.C. - SECTION 439(5) CR. P.C. - SECTION 369 CR. P.C. - SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT (ACT XXXVI OF 1963) - SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 417 CR. P.C. - SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 29 OF THE INDIAN LIMITATION ACT (ACT XXXVI OF 1963).
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a private complainant, filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in a criminal case. The appellant had initially filed a private complaint against the respondent, but the police later filed a charge sheet against the respondent on the same cause of action. The Magistrate took cognizance of the case on the private complaint and later clubbed it with the case filed by the police. The Magistrate acquitted the respondent, and the appellant filed a revision petition, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The appellant then filed an appeal under Section 561A Cr. P.C., seeking to review the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appeal was barred by limitation, as it was filed more than 60 days after the order of acquittal. The court also held that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case on the private complaint, and therefore the appellant's remedy was to file an appeal under Section 417(3) Cr. P.C., and not a revision petition. The court further held that it could not review its previous order dismissing the revision petition, as there was no error apparent on the face of the record.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal was barred by limitation. 2. Whether the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case on the private complaint or on the police charge sheet. 3. Whether the appellant's remedy was to file an appeal under Section 417(3) Cr. P.C. or a revision petition. 4. Whether the court could review its previous order dismissing the revision petition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appeal was barred by limitation, as it was filed more than 60 days after the order of acquittal. The court relied on Section 417(4) Cr. P.C., which prescribes a special period of limitation of 60 days for appeals against orders of acquittal. The court also held that the Supreme Court had made it clear that the court has no power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (Act XXXVI of 1963) to extend the special period of limitation prescribed by Section 417(4) Cr. P.C. 2. The court held that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case on the private complaint. The court relied on the fact that the Magistrate had initially taken cognizance of the case on the private complaint and had later clubbed it with the case filed by the police. The court also held that the appellant had stated in her memorandum of appeal that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case on the private complaint. 3. The court held that the appellant's remedy was to file an appeal under Section 417(3) Cr. P.C., and not a revision petition. The court relied on the fact that the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case on the private complaint, and therefore the case was instituted on a private person's complaint and not on the police report. The court also held that no revision lies under Section 439(5) Cr. P.C. when an appeal lies. 4. The court held that it could not review its previous order dismissing the revision petition, as there was no error apparent on the face of the record.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal.
This is an appeal filed by a private complainant Sahodari Sonar of Khurai Telipati, P. S. Imphal under Section 561(A) Cr. P.C., to set aside the judgement of acquittal of the respondent-accused passed by Sri Ch. Samarendra Singh, Magistrate First Class, Imphal in F.I.R. Case 662 (6) 64 - I.P.S. dated 15-6-1965.
2. This case raises important questions of law. The facts of the case, as narrated by the appellant, which led up to the institution of this appeal are, briefly, as follows;
(a) While the appellant was taking bath in the Imphal River on 15-6-1964 at Kalimay Ghat near Khurai Telipatti, the respondent Kailash Ram Teli made immoral overtures to her with intent to outrage her modesty and she felt insulted and protested against the unmannerly conduct of the respondent. The respondent became furious and struck the appellant with a lathi. The appellant tried to ward off the blow with her right hand. But, the blow fell between the thumb and the index finger of her right hand and caused a profuse bleeding injury. The appellant immediately reported the matter to the Station House Officer of Lamlong Police Out-post. He directed a constable to take the appellant to Imphal Police Station. The S.H.O. recorded the first information report of the appellant. He sent the appellant with a constable to the Civil Hospital in Imphal. The appellant was treated there as an out-patient for about one month.
(b) The Imphal Police arrested the respondent on 15-6-1964, the day of occurrence and released him on bail. But, the police did not take any prompt action and kept the investigation pending for an unduly long time.
(c) Being aggrieved with the manner of the Investigation, the appellant filed a private complaint petition against the respondent under Sections 323 and 353 I.P.C. in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Imphal East. He took cognizance of the case as Criminal Case 38 of 1964 and proceeded with it. Later on, the case was transferred to the file of the S.D.C./I.E. (Second Class Magistrate), who re-numbered the case as Criminal Case 6/1.E. of 1964.
(d) During the pendency of the said Criminal case No. 6/I.E. of 1964 in the Court of the S.D.C./I.E. (Second Class Magistrate), the S.H.O. Imphal Police Station submitted the charge-sheet against the respondent accused in F.I.R. Case No. 662(6)64 I.P.C. under Sections 323, 354 and 506 I.P.C. on the same cause of action in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Imphal East. Subsequently, the F.I.R. Case was transferred to the Court of Sri S. Tombi Singh, Magistrate First Class, Imphal. Sri Ch. Samarendra Singh succeeded him as Magistrate First Class, Imphal Police Station. In the course of hearing of the F.I.R. case and after framing the charges against the respondents, the Magistrate First Class Sri Ch. Samarendra Singh, called for the records of the Criminal Case 6/I.E. of 1964 and made it a part of the F.I.R. case pending in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Lamphel Police Station.
(e) After trial, Sri Ch. Samarendra Singh, Magistrate First Class passed an order on 15-6-1965 (on the docket, without writing the Judgement) acquitting the respondent-accused. The appellant filed a revision (Cr. R. P. No. 53/1965) against the acquittal in the Sessions Court, Imphal, stating that the Magistrate did not write any judgement and that the order of acquittal is contrary to the provisions of Section 367 Cr. P.C. The case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge. The latter registered the Criminal case as Criminal Revision Case 53/65/18 of 1965 and dismissed the revision on 5-1-1966 even before receiving the records in F.I.R. Case 662(6)64 I.P.S. from the Court of the Magistrate concerned, on the ground that the petitioner should have preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal with the special leave of this Court under Section 417(3) Cr. P.C. and that the irregularity of want of judgement is curable under Section 537 Cr. P.C.
(f) The appellant carried the matter in
AI
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
