The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a cross-appeal or acquittal appeal to be filed against the acquittal of the petitioner under a specific section of the Indian Penal Code, influencing the court's decision on the conviction and sentence under that section.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Deo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 949 of 2013. He is appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in Cr. Rev. No. 913 of 2013.

2. Heard Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 913 of 2013. He is appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in Cr. Rev. No. 949 of 2013.

3. Cr. Rev. No. 913 of 2013 has been filed by the convict and Cr. Rev. No. 949 of 2013 has been filed by the informant of the case. These two criminal revision petitions arise out of judgment dated 10.07.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2009 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar whereby the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and has additionally convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been additionally sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code.

4. The petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 913 of 2013 (convict) has also challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.07.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Madhupur at Deoghar in P.C.R. Case No. 96 of 2007 and T.R. Case No. 598 of 2009 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year.

5. Upon perusal of the judgments passed by the learned trial court and learned appellate court, it appears that the accused was tried for offence punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code.

Cr. Rev. No. 949 of 2013

6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 949 of 2013, who was the informant of the case, seeks permission to withdraw the criminal revision and does not want to press the same.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as the opposite party No. 2 in Cr. Rev. No. 949 of 2013 have no objection to the prayer made.

8. Accordingly, Cr. Rev. No. 949 of 2013 is dismissed as not pressed.

Cr. Rev. No. 913 of 2013

Arguments of the petitioner

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court, but was acquitted for offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. He further submits that there was no cross-appeal or acquittal appeal filed by the State or the informant against the acquittal of the petitioner under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. He submits that in absence of any cross appeal or acquittal appeal filed by the State or the informant, the learned appellate court could not have convicted the petitioner under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel submits that the appellate court has convicted the petitioner under Section 323 as well as upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 354 of I.P.C. passed by the learned trial court.

10. The learned counsel, while referring to the operative portion of the appellate court’s judgment submits that while upholding the judgment of conviction of the petitioner by the learned trial court ( conviction under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code), the learned appellate court has referred to Sections 323 and 454 of Indian Penal Code and also held that the petitioner has committed offence under Sections 323, 345 and 454 of Indian Penal Code, but no charge was framed under Section 454 of IPC. As section 354 of IPC has not been mentioned in para 9, the operative portion of the impugned judgment, it cannot be said that the conviction of the petitioner under section 354 has been upheld by the learned appell