1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT NAND KISHORE VS. STATE OF RAJ. AND ANR. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No. 323 OF 2001 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated March 31, 2001 of Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities ) Cases, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.25 of 1999 whereby the accused petitioner was acquitted from offence under sections 447, and 323 IPC and section 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989. Date of Order : April 9, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Vikrant Gupta for the petitioner Mr. M.K.Sharma, for the respondent. Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Nand Kishore against the order dated March 31, 2001 of Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities ) Cases, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.25 of 1999 whereby the accused petitioner was acquitted from offence under sections 447, and 323 IPC and section 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989. 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged an FIR No. 58/99 at Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur for offence under sections 447, and 323 read with sections 3(1)(v), 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 (in short Act of 1989) for an incident which took place near about 6-7 p.m. on Feb.19, 1999. As per the facts averred in the FIR, it was stated that the accused Manoj entered at Plot No.55 which is situated at Sriramnagar after crossing boundary wall and he misbehaved /abused the mother of the petitioner Smt. Shanti Devi. He used abusive language and used words “Dhad, Chamar” before entering into the plot. The police after investigation submitted challan in the aforesaid case in the court of Judicial Magistrate No.14 Jaipur City Jaipur on March 5, 1999 and the matter was committed in the Special Court after taking cognizance. During trial the prosecution examined 10 3 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents. The statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence the accused produced one witness and exhibited two documents. The trial court after hearing arguments acquitted the accused person from offence under sections 447, 323 IPC and section 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Act5 of 1989 vide judgment dated March 31, 2001. Aggrieved against this order present revision petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused non-petitioner for offence charged against him. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the court below after considering all the evidence, documents 4 and record passed the order of acquittal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The judgment passed by the court below is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The court's attention was drawn on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that “it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.” 6. Thus the order passed by the court below does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/