State of Rajasthan filed application in terms of Section 378 3 Cr.
P.C. questioning legality and companyrectness of the order of acquittal passed by the trial companyrt in respect of respondent Nos.
Much before on that date i.e. on 20.9.2004, the appellant had filed an application for revision of the order of acquittal.
By order dated 29.4.2005 the said application was rejected.
The order was a number reasoned, cryptic one and is number sustainable in view of what has been stated by this Court in several cases.
The said respondents faced trial for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and Section 3 2 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 in short the Atrocities Act .
P.C. for grant of leave to appeal.
5630 of 2005 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
By judgment dated 22.6.2004 the trial companyrt i.e. Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Balotra, District Badmer, Rajasthan held the accused persons to be number guilty and directed their acquittal.
The revision application filed by the appellant cannot be treated as infructuous and number entertainable merely because States application for grant of leave has been rejected.
In support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court had summarily rejected the application for grant of leave filed by the State.
In any event, this revision application has been filed earlier, and that should have taken up along with the application for grant of leave.
This appeal is by the informant questioning companyrectness of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the revision application filed by the appellant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Cr.
As numbered above, by the impugned order the High Court dismissed the revision application on the ground that the States application for grant of leave has been dismissed and therefore the revision petition was number entertainable.
2 to 5.
