DUNI CHAND Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts, leading to this petition are that the present petitioners were prosecuted under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code on a Criminal complaint filed by the present respondent Savitri Devi. The learned Judicial Magistrate I Class, Karnal who tried the case, found the petitioners guilty and convicted them for the above offence but released them under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (No. 20 of 1958) after admonishing them.

(2.) SAVITRI Devi filed revision in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal who treated it as an appeal and ordered each of the petitioners to pay Rs. 500/- as compensation to Savitri Devi for the loss or injury caused to her reputation. He also ordered the petitioners to pay Rs. 100/- each as costs of the proceedings to her. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition.

(3.) IN the present case, it was urged on behalf of complainant before the Sessions Judge that the revision petition had been filed under the erroneous belief that no appeal lay against the impugned order of the learned trial Court and therefore, the revision should be treated as an appeal in view of section 401(5) of the (new) Code. In the interests of justice, the learned Sessions Judge treated the revision petition as an appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any defect in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned Sessions Judge.