IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MMO No. 467 of 2024 Decided on: 08.01.2025 ____________________________________________________ Jagan Nath ……….. petitioner Versus Maghi Ram respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed seeking the following substantive reliefs:- i. That the impugned order dated 15.01.2024 Annexure P-3 may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal and erroneous in the eyes of law. ii. That respondent not being the aggrieved party is not entitled to maintain and file the appeal /revision against the judgment of Acquittal Annexure P-5 as such impugned order Annexure P-3 may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Perused the pleadings and impugned order. 3. Admitted facts in the case at hand are that a FIR No. 26/11 was registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 120-B IPC on 09.02.2011. The same was filed on the complaint of the present respondent. 4. Post investigation, the challan was filed in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh District Solan H.P. After conclusion of trial vide judgment dated 02.09.2019, the learned ACJM, Nalagarh, Solan had acquitted the accused. The respondent aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 02.09.2019 in Criminal Case No. 206/2 of 2011 titled as State of H.P. vs. Jagan Nath and others preferred an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan H.P. 5. Indisputably in the case at hand, cognizance had been taken upon the police report under Section 190 (1)(d) Cr.PC. As a consequence thereof, it was the State alone, who was competent to prefer an appeal in the High Court against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.09.2019 under Section 378 Cr.PC, after obtaining leave thereunder. A complainant like the present respondent could have feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 02.09.2019, only preferred a revision. 6. In the aforesaid legal position, an application was filed by the present respondent for converting his appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.09.2019 into a revision. Taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in this respect in Jagbir and another vs. State of Punjab, 3 Criminal, Appeal No.121 of 1996, decided on 03.09.1988, relevant extract whereof has been reproduced in the impugned order, the application was allowed and the appeal so filed by the respondent-complainant was ordered to be converted into a revision. Admittedly the Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh has the power to entertain the revision. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, I see no infirmity in the impugned order dated 15.01.2024. Hence, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Interim order stands vacated Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 18th January, 2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge January 08, 2025 tarun