ar C.R.R 947 of 2006
The State of West Bengal Ors.
None appears for the petitioner. No accommodation has been
The revisional application has been preferred against the
order dated 21.5.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Mekliganj, Cooch Behar in connection with G.R. Case No. 282 of
2001 wherein the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the
accused persons from the charges under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code.
I have perused the judgment so delivered by the learned trial
Court wherein the learned trial Court after examination of eight
charge sheeted witnesses examined the accused persons under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after hearing
the final arguments proceeded to deliver the judgment on
Learned trial Court on appreciation of the oral evidence and
the documentary evidence categorically pointed out that there are
two serious flaws in the prosecution case. Firstly, there has been
an unexplained delay of 48 days in lodging the F.I.R and secondly
the complainant P.W1, being the present petitioner, admitted that
she has started this case, which is a second F.I.R. According to
the learned trial Court, the second F.I.R on self-same set of facts is
barred under the law and the trial Court was never apprised at
any point of time regarding the first F.I.R of the case.
After perusal of the judgment and order so delivered by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Mekliganj, Cooch Behar, I find that
the said judgment was passed more than 14 years ago and on
appreciation of certain facts, which gave rise to substantial
question of law relating to second F.I.R.
I have also taken into account that this Court while
exercising its revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal
should not disturb the findings of the learned trial Court only if an
alternative view is possible, as the accused is presumed to be
innocent and the same is fortified by an order of acquittal.
Thus I hold that the judgment and order dated 21.5.2005
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mekliganj, do not call
for any interference.
Accordingly CRR 947 of 2006 is dismissed.