1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1070/ 2003 SATYA NARAIN & OTHERS Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the Order dated 18.7.03 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura, in Criminal Revision No. 18/ 2001(State vs. Satya Narain & Another) by which revision was accepted. : : : DATE OF JUDGMENT : - 26th MARCH, 2009. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE K.S. CHAUDHARI . Mr.Ashok Sharma , counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Javed Choudhary, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C against order dated 18.7.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura, in criminal Revision No.18/ 2001 (State vs Satya Narain & others.) by which revision was accepted and order dated 25.5.2001 and judgment dated 27.1.2001 passed by the 2 lower Court were set aside and matter remanded for recording evidence and deciding matter afresh on merits. Brief facts of the case are that challan was filed against petitioners under Sections 365,342 and 384 IPC in the trial Court, and after framing charges, and recording evidence, accused persons were acquitted of the charges levelled against them by the judgment dated 27.1.2001.This judgm ent was challenged by the way of revision before the Additional Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 18.7.2003 set aside the judgment as well as order dated 25.1.2001 by which evidence of prosecution was closed and matter was remanded back to the trial Court with directions, as mentioned above. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that revisional Court had no jurisdiction to entertain 3 revision against acquittal, hence, order dated 18.7.03 may be set aside whereas learned Public Prosecutor submitted that order passed by the revisional Court is in accordance with law, hence, petition may be dismissed. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 27.1.2001 acquitted accused petitioners under Sections 365, 342 and 384 IPC against which State preferred revision before the Sessions Court. Section 378 Cr.P.C, as it was before amendment, provided that from an original or appeallate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than High Court, State may prefer appeal to the High Court. This provision clearly reveals that against order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, on police report, only appeal could have been filed in the High Court, and no revision was maintainable before the Sessions Court. No revision was maintainable before the Sessions Court, even than Sessions Court entertained revision and set aside order of acquittal passed by the trial Court which is clearly without jurisdiction. Revisional Court has mentioned in its order that order dated 25.1.2001 passed by the trial Court is 4 also set aside, though, that order was not challenged by the State before the revisional Court. Thus, it becomes clear that revisional Court has set aside order dated 25.1.2001 passed by the trial Court without any challenge before the revisional Court and revisional Court without any jurisdiction set aside order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Consequently, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is allowed and order dated 18.7.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura, is set aside.. ( K.S.CHAUDHARI ) J. CKThanvi