BHARAT KUMAR JANGONDA PATIL Vs. ANNASO SURGONDA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioners who were facing prosecution in a private complaint under Sections 341,342,352,504,506 and 448 read with Section 34 of ipc have challenged the order dated 22nd February 1991 passed by the learned sessions judge, Sangli whereby the order of acquittal recorded by the Additional sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1987 was set aside.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the present writ petition are as follows : the petitioners were charged for offences under Sections 323, 352, 448, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC in the Court of JMFC, Miraj in Regular Criminal Case no. 239 of 1986 and Summary Criminal Case No. 1457 of 1985. After the evidence was led, the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge and JMFC, Miraj by his judgment and order dated 31st January 1987 was pleased to convict the petitioners accused under sections 323, 352 and 448 of IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-each in default to suffer RI for 15 days and acquitted them under other offences with which they were charged.

(3.) AGAINST the said order of conviction the petitioners filed Criminal Appeal no. 15 of 1987 which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli who, after considering the facts and hearing the Advocates for the appellants and Additional public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State, set aside the order of conviction0 and recorded the order of acquittal by his judgment and order dated 27th May 1988. In the said Appeal the State of Maharashtra was arraigned as Respondent no. l while the private complainant was arraigned as Respondent No. 2. It appears that aggrieved by the said order of acquittal the private complainant filed an application dated 2nd June 1988 for fresh trial and/or hearing in the said appeal on the ground that he was not served in the matter. Normally when the appeal was filed in a private complaint against the order of conviction, the private complainant ought to have been served. In this case no doubt the private complainant was made respondent No. 2, but according to him he was absent as he was not served in the matter. The Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the appeal on merits recorded the finding of acquittal. The learned Sessions Judge, Sangli heard this application for setting aside the order of acquittal made by the private complaint on 22nd february, 1991 and set aside the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the additional Sessions Judge and restored Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1987 to the file for disposal according to law which is the order impugned in this writ petition.