A.S.NEHRA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated January 5, 1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana by which the acquittal of the petitioners was set aside and the case was remained to the trial Court for deciding the same in accordance with law.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that Karnail Singh filed a complaint against the petitioner and others under Sections 323/324/325/342/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was framed against the petitioners by the trial Judge on 13.8.1987 after recording the evidence of the complainant. On 3-1-2.1987 the case was called several times by the trial judge but none appeared on behalf of the complainant at 2.30 P.M. the complaint was dismissed and the petitioners were acquitted by the trial Judge. The primary submission of Ms. Surjit Kaur Taunque, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that no revision petition was maintainable before the Additional Sessions Judge against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Magistrate on 3.12.1987. She has further submitted that the said order of the Magistrate was appealable, though with the permission of this Court under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the appeal having not been filed, sub-Section (4) of Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure completely barred the maintainability of a revision petition against the order of acquittal. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find merit in her submission.
(3.) IT is not disputed that an appeal against the acquittal was maintainable under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That remedy having not been availed of by the complainant, no revision could be maintained. The learned Additional Sessions Judge appeared to be completely oblivious of sub-section (4) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.;