Murlidbar, J. - (1.) TWO cross cases were pending before Munsif Magistrate, Kannauj relating to an occurrence of 27-9-1971. The earlier was a State case instituted through a police challan. This was against seven accused including one lady Uma Devi the allegations being that armed with lathis and sticks, these persons had pushed complainant's brother and nephew inside the shop and ran away after locking the shop from outside. The offence charged was u/Secs. 147/342 IPC. The cross case was a (complaint filed by Uma Devi u/Sec. 394 IPC. The Magistrate Ali Ahmad Samdani heard evidence in both the cases and per judgment dated 21-7-79 acquitted the accused in the 394 IPC case. On the same day in the State case also he passed an order "I have perused material on record carefully. The accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt. They are acquitted after giving benefit of doubt. Judgment shall be delivered later on". It appears this detailed judgment never came to be delivered.
(2.) THE Sessions Judge in the course of his administrative inspection happened to notice these two records and the incomplete order in the State case. THErefore, after issuing notice to the parlies, he exercised his suo-moto revisional jurisdiction and per order dated 30-9-80 held that the operative part of judgment of Sri Samdani was bad and no judgment in the eye of law. He relied upon Pitam v. State, 1980 ACrR 211. Having held this the learned Judge went on to observe that cross-cases have to be decided by the same judge and on the same day and, therefore, the judgment in the cross-case had also to be set aside as lacking in propriety. Accordingly he set aside both the judgments and remanded the cases to Munsif/Magistrate for decision in accordance with law. THE accused in the complaint case have filed this revision. THE learned counsel on behalf of the complainant respondent Uma Devi who incidently is also one of the accused in the cross-case has supported the revision but contended that the Magistrate's order albeit brief and cryptic with regard to Uma Devi and her co-accused should be also maintained especially when the matter is a trivial one and the occurrence is of 1971. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge seriously erred in setting aside the acquittal judgment in favour of the revisionists on the flimsy ground of propriety of the cross cases being decided together. The rule :as regards cross-cases is only one of prudence to avoid different standards as far as may be and not one of law. Legally both cases are separate and have to be decided on their own evidence on record. The case against the revisionist was properly tried and ended in acquittal. There is absolutely no justification for interfering with this decision on the extraneous ground of some illegality in the judgment of the cross-case which makes that judgment unsustainable. Therefore, the revisionist's stand is well taken and the revisional order of the Sessions Judge must be quashed so far as the case no. 158/9/1973, Uma Devi v. Subhash Chand and others is concerned. Coming to the other case it has tci be realised that the State which was the prosecutor had not filed any appeal nor did any aggrieved person filed any revision. The case had been tried and theie is no controversy that the judgment of the acquittal was pronounced in open court. The Magistrate stated that he would give reasons later on and recorded this in the order-sheet. He failed to record these reasons. Whether this was and legal procedure or not should not prejudice the accused particularly when no [party to the case is complaining. The rule against double jeopardy is a well established principle of criminal law and the bare fact that the Magistrate took a mistaken view of law about the legality of dictating and pronouncing only the operative portion of the judgment indicating that he would give reasons later on or that he failed to give reasons subsequently should not be held sufficient to (deprive the accused of this protection. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is tantamount to punishing the accused for the fault of the Magistrate even thouandh the other party had not raised any objection. Moreover the incident seems to be a trivial one and the matter is 10 years old now. It will not be in the interest of justice to rake up the controversy at this stage. Revisional jurisdiction should only be exercised to subserve the ends of justice. These in the circumstances of this case require that the orders be allowed to stand. In the circumstances the order of the Sessions Judge must be quashed with regard to case No. 126/9/1973/, State v. Ram Awatar and others also.
(3.) THE revision is allowed. THE order of the Sessions Judge dated 30-9- 1980 is quashed. In both the cases the order of the Magistrate shall stand. --- Revision allowed,,;