IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILA5PUR .CR.M.P.NO. ^^ APPLICANT: Complainant Smt. Push 7200 9 f?a Daswani, aged "^•<.;-"^?! about 40 years, wife of Shri Tarachand Daswani, resident >*<^^p}^ of A-9, Shubham Vihar, Beside Anmol Super Bazar/ Mahabir Nagar Police Station, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (CG) Vs RESPONDENTS: Accused ^ /' ^^^. ife^S^i 1. Basant Kumar lYuel, son of Late D.R. Yuelj, aged about 76 years, Retired Principal, resident of Salem English School Compound, in front of Motibagh, Raipur (CG) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station, Gole Bazar, Raipur. PETITLON UNDERSECTION48r2j91STtHECODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1373 L--- ^! i^^^ii^. HIGH COURT OF : S^B^s H^ BLB,SHRI,MANmDR^MOHAHSHmyASTAVA,J. Cr.'M.P No.614/2009 Smt. PLishpa Daswani Versus RESPONDBNT Basant Kumar Yiiel and another ^(PetttiQn u/S 482 of fehe Cr.P.Q Appe^.raBce: Sliri Vivek Chopda, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pralull Bharat, counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the Sta.te/respondent No.2. OHAL-PRDER (Passedon2.9.2011) With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matt.er is herd finally. 2. This petition under Sect.ion-482. ofCr.P.C. has been prefen-ed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dateci 18.6.2009 passed in uuregistered criminal revision by fhe learned 9til Additional Sessions Judge (FrfCL Raipur< 3. Assailiiig tiie correctness and va3idity of the impLigned order dated 18.6.2009, leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that thougli tlie petitioner had prefen'ed revision against tiie judginent of acquittal dated 20.2.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Ma-gistrate, Raipur in C')riiiimal Ca.se No. 1425/07, by which respondent No. 1 was acquitted of the chm'ge of commission ..^;' /'^^ -2- of offence under Section 354 of tlie IPC and as many as 9 grounds were raised in ttie memo of revision, the leanied revisional Court has completely abdicated its Jirrisdictiou and had dismissed tlie revision without consideration of any of the gi'ounds urged by the petitioner in the revision. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner submits that the Court below was obliged zmder the law to record at lea.st, in brief, tlie reasons for arriving at the conclusion reflected m the order, but fhe Couit below has not considered auy ofthe grounds and has recorded that alter perusal ofthe grounds of revision and impugned judgment, no error is found. He siibmits tliat tlie order of the revisional Coiirt. is not speakiag and only on tiiis count, the impugned order is Uable to be set. aside. 4. On the other haiid, leamed counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that though the learned revisional Court has not elaborately dealt with tlie grouuds which have been urged iu the memo of revision and what may have been submitted belbre the Coiirt by the petitioner, only on those grounds fhe petitioner is not entitled to any relief. He submits that the judgment of acquittal is based on proper appreciation of entire evidence ou record aiid the learned trial Court, aft.er meticulously exaniining fhe evidence available on record and taking into consideration the serious discrepancies and possibility of false implication, has acquifted respondent No.l. Therefore, the order of acquittal does not warrant. aiiy interierence. He further submits that as fhe revision cannot be equated as appeal^ there was no obligatiou cast ou the learned revisioual Court to record detailed reasons bv assessinent of \ ^ '^. evidence on record before summarily dismissiiig ttie revision petition. He furfher subinits that as the entire case of the prosecutlon has been found to be untrusn^ortliy by the leaiTied trial Court for cogent reasons^ even if it is found that the learaed Court. below has not recorded detailed reasons, tl~ds Court. itself may examine fhe inaterial on record. 5. Vide jiidgment ol' acquittal dated 20.2.2009, the learned trial Court has acquitted respondent No. 1 of the charge of commissioii of ofience iinder Section 354 of the IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the petitionery who is the vlctim, had preferred revision Linder Section 397/398 of the Cr.P.C, before the Sessions Judge. After going tbrough the grounds which have been i-irged in fhe inemo of revision^ which ai'e as maay as 9 iu nunibers; it cannot be said that the memo of revision did not contain any ground seekmg revision of the order of acqiiittal. It is true that. the scope of revision is much limited, part.iciilarly in cases of acquittal, however^ once the petitioner preferred a revision on speciflc grounds contained m the memo of rcvision; it was obligatory on the part of leamed Sessions Judge to examine those grounds and record its reason, however brief, before coming to conclusion that the revision has no merit. Though the scope of interierence m a revision is quite distinct from that in the matter of appeal, nevertheless, judicial authority is under aii obligation to examine fhe grounds urged before it and record its own reason as to why the grounds urged in fhe petition are not made out. In the absence of miy reason whatsoever assigiied by ^) leanied revisional Court, I have to hold th.at the impugned order dated 18-6.2009 has beeu passed witliout due and proper application of mind to the grounds which were ui^ed by the petitioner in memo of revision against the judgment of acqiiittal dated 20.2.2009. In fhat view of fhe matter, fhe iiapugned order dated 18,6,2009, summarily disniissiug the rexdsiou^ without recording any rea.son^ cannot be sustatned iu law and has to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, flie order dated 18.6.2009 passed in criminal revision by the leamed 9th Additional Sessions Judge (PTC), Raipur is hereby set aside and tlie matter is remanded to fhe leamed revisional Court for due and proper consideration of the revision preferred by the revisioner/petitioner, on fhe ground urged in tlie revision. 7. Before parting with the case, it is made clear that this Court has uot commented iipou merits of the revision preferred by fhe petitioner* The leamed revisional Court shall examine ftie same stricflv in accordance with law. Praveen 8. The petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge