IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:09.08.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM CRL.O.P.No.10319 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 Gurunathan .. Petitioner/Revision Petitioner .. Vs .. 1. Kumaresan 2. Kandan 3. Subbaraya Pillai (died) 4. Kathiravan 5. Balu .. Respondents/Accused 6. State rep. by, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi Police Station, kallakurichi, Villupuram District. (Crime No.818 of 2004) .. Respondent/Complainant Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the entire records relating to Criminal Revision Petition No.28 of 2008, dated 23.12.2010 on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi, confirming the order passed in C.C.No.3 of 2006, dated 14.12.2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District and set aside the same consequently award punishment on the respondents 1 to 5 herein. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For R-6 : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER The petitioner herein was examined as P.W.1 in C.C.No.3 of 2006. The respondents 1 to 5 herein were the accused facing charges for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 325 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. The respondents 1 to 5 were acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi. Against the said acquittal, the petitioner herein had preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No.28 of 2008 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi, and the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner had preferred this criminal original petition before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below not appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10 and acquitted the accused on the basis of minor contradictions in the evidence of witnesses. 3. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 4. The petitioner, who is the de facto complainant, had preferred a revision before the Sessions Court challenging the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. A revision could be filed either before the Sessions Court or before the High Court as per Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. which is as follows:- "397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.- (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. Sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record." 5. The petitioner having already chosen to file the revision before the Sessions Court, challenging the order or finding or sentence, it is not permissible to the petitioner to prefer further application before the High Court challenging the same, since it is barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., which is as follows:- "397. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them." 6. Ordinarily the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. amounts only to second revision. Even if mistake of fact or mistake of law is pointed out, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised unless it is shown that there is a grave miscarriage of justice. 7. Both the trial Court and the revisional Court have considered the evidence and passed the order of acquittal and there is no miscarriage of justice. No ground is made out to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court in this matter. Hence, this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar jrl To 1. The Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi. 2. The Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. 3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi Police Station, kallakurichi, Villupuram District. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. CRL.O.P.No.10319 of 2011 TS(CO) RVL 29.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/