1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Ashok Kumar Vs. Girdhari Lal Agrawal & anr. SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.32/2002. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 6th August, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Ashok Kumar ) for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Gajraj) Mr. Anurag Agrawal for the respondents. BY THE COURT: This revision petition under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 30th October, 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.91/2001 whereby he discharged the accused-respondents from the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act'). The facts in brief are that the complainant filed a complaint in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jaipur against the respondents for the offence under sections 353 and 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(2)(x) of the Act. The learned trial court on the basis of the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. took 2 cognizance against the accused-respondents and committed the case to the learned Special Judge. The learned Special Judge after hearing both the sides vide impugned order dated 30th October, 2001 discharged the accused respondents. Hence, this revision petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the instant case learned Magistrate took cognizance on the basis of the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., therefore, the learned Special Judge, committed illegality in discharging the accused respondents. Learned counsel has read over the statements before me. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused-respondents that in relation to same incident on behalf of accused-respondents FIR No.72/1998 was registered in the concerned police station and on that FIR after investigation charge-sheet was filed under section 332 and 353 IPC. The complainant was the accused in that case and after trial conviction was recorded under section 323 IPC but instead of sentencing the complainant benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act was given vide judgment dated 5.8.2005 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur. According to the learned counsel in the above circumstance, no charge was required to be framed because the judgment of conviction has not been challenged any further. It is contended that a detailed order discharging the accused respondent has been passed which 3 requires no interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this court. I have considered the submissions made before me. It is to be seen that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that in relation to same incident complainant was convicted after trial under section 323 IPC and it was not found that the accused-respondents were responsible in any manner for committing any offence under the Act. The finding of conviction recorded since has not been challenged, therefore, same has attained finality. It is also not in dispute that the complaint was filed after about four months of the incident in as much as incident is dated 24.4.1998 whereas the complaint was filed on 10.8.1998. It is apparent that it was filed after a long delay and even otherwise in the admitted position of facts, the learned revisional court considering the entire matter has discharged the accused-respondents. Thus, taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to take a view different than one which has been taken by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur and the order passed by the learned Special Judge suffers from no illegality or infirmity. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J) 4