VELLAYANAMBALAM Vs. SOLAI SERVAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise the order of the joint 1st class Magistrate of Dindigul Division reversing the conviction and sentence passed by the Stationary second class Magistrate of Nelakottai in Calender Case No. 144 of. 1914.

(2.) The complainant filed a complaint against the two accused who are the present counter- petitioners, charging them with offences under Sections 352 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of Act 1 of 1871 (Cattle Trespass Act). The Stationary Sub-magistrate fined each of the accused Rs. 15 for each of the offences and directed them to pay Rs. 5-4-0 as costs to. the complainant. An appeal was preferred and Mr. Glasson the Joint Magistrate of Dindigul Division, reversed the conviction after going through the evidence and material, papers, as he was of opinion that the case was not proved.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Jayarama Aiyar for the Respondents that no Criminal Revision Petition lies to set aside an order of acquittal and that the only remedy in such cases is an appeal by the Government as provided for by Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been argued that a private person has no locus standi in such cases and reference has been made to Thandavan v. Periannan (1890) I.L.R. 14 M. 363 and Sinnu Gownden in re (1914) 26 M.L.J. 100 The right of a private party to prefer a revision petition against an order of acquittal and the circumstances under which the High Court would interfere, if at all, have been considered in numerous cases. In Thandavan v. Periannan (1890) I.L.R. 14 M. 363, it was held that an appeal. against an order of acquittal by way of revision was. not contemplated by the Criminal Procedure Code and their Lordships refused to hear the petitioner s counsel. The observations of Miller, J in the case of Sinnu Goundan in re (1914) 26 M.L.J. 100 to the effect that to entertain proceedings by way of revision where an appear would lie from an acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is contrary to the spirit if not to the letter of Sub-section 5 of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, also support the view taken in Thandavan v. Periannan (1890) I.L.R. 14 M. 363. There are, however, numerous cases where the High Court has held that it has power to interfere in revision although the powers were exercised within very narrow limits. I need only refer to Sukho v. Durga (1879) I.L.R. 2 A. 448, Queen Empress v. Ala Baksh (1884) I.L.R. 6 A. 484, In re Aminuddin (1901) I.L.B. 24 A. 316, Emperor v. Madar Baksh (1902) I.L.B. 25 A. 128 Heera Rai v. Framji (1890) I.L.R. 15 B. 319, Municipal Committee of Dacca v. Hihgoo Raj (1882) I.L.B. 8 C. 895, Deputy Legal Remembrancer v. Kuruma Baistobi (1891) I.L.B. 22 C. 164, Rupa Mandal v. Kishab Mandal (1907) 5 C.L.J. 462, Bellow v. Parker (19.03) I.R. 7 C.W.N. 521, Rakhal Das Roy v. Kailash Banee (1910) 11 C.L.J. 113, Kangali v. Rama Charon Bhaktacharjee (1911) I.L.R. 38 C. 786, Ramjeevan Rai v. Milakh Barai and (1913) 18 C.W.N.684 Shaikh Bagu v. Baika Singh (1914) 18 C.W.N. 1244.