Ashok Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed by the revisionist as they have felt aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Deoria in Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2003 on 17.6.2006.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that a chargesheet was filed in the court of learned Magistrate, Deoria under Section 323/504 I.P.C. against the revisionist and one Smt. Vimla Devi. After the trial of the case, learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond doubt and thereafter he acquitted all the accused persons of the charges levelled against them. The complainant of the case felt aggrieved and he filed a criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Deoria. It was transferred to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Deoria who disposed of the same as mentioned above in this judgment. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the revision and remanded back the matter to the learned Magistrate to try the case afresh. The revisionist felt aggrieved by this order and therefore, the present revision has been filed. I have heard learned A.G.A. No one is present on behalf of the revisionist and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.
(3.) FROM perusal of the order impugned it is evident that learned Sessions Judge has transgressed his power of revision. In fact he has considered all the facts available before him on the record. He has examined the factual aspects of the case as well as the evidence exclusively related to the facts of the case. It appears that he has decided a criminal appeal against acquittal and not a revision. From the perusal of the records it is evident that two witnesses of facts have turned hostile. Neither I.O. was examined nor the Head Constable/ Constable who had written the N.C.R. and general diary. No police papers have been proved. If in these circumstances, an order of acquittal has been passed by the learned Magistrate, I do not think that law wise he has committed any illegality.;