IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2124 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/02/2008 IN CRRP 25/07 IN CRA.788/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA CC.167/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------- ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.KOYOOTTY, PALLIYARAVEETTIL, CHORODE VILLATE, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: STATE & ACCUSED ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.K.KUNHABDULLA HAJI, S/O.SOOPY HAJI, TAJ MANZIL, VALLIKKADU MUTUNGAL AMSOM, RAYARANGOTH DESOM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2124 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the defacto complainant in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 325 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. The crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The trial ended in conviction. An appeal was preferred by the accused persons; whereas the petitioner herein, ie. the defacto complainant filed a revision complaining about the inadequacy of conviction and sentence. Both the appeal and the revision were disposed of together by the learned Sessions Judge by a common order/judgment. The appeal filed by the accused was allowed and the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The petitioner has now filed this Crl.M.C to challenge the order passed in the Crl.R.P. The petitioner had sought leave of this Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C to prefer an appeal and I note that on account of an obvious error such leave was granted by this Court. Be that as it may, appropriate directions have already been issued to the Registry in that regard. Crl.M.C. No.2124 of 2008 2 3. In this Crl.M.C the petitioner wants to challenge the order passed in the revision petition. The revision petition in turn was filed complaining about the inadequacy of the sentence imposed. That order is sought to be challenged now. But I find that this Crl.M.C now has no legs to stand on. The petitioner cannot be heard to complain of the inadequacy of the sentence when the conviction itself is set aside by the appellate court. The only remedy available to the petitioner, it appears to me, is to challenge the impugned judgment of acquittal by initiating appropriate proceedings in a revision. If he succeeds in such revision, he can challenge the sentence imposed also in such revision. At any rate, this Crl.M.C is not maintainable as the foundation for a claim for enhancement of sentence has already gone. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that his option of filing a revision petition may not be fettered. That option will remain unfettered. The impugned judgment shall be returned to the petitioner's counsel forthwith to enable him to file a revision petition against judgment of acquittal. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C. No.2124 of 2008 3