1. ' This is an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Challenging the order passed by the learned Additional City Magistrate, Lateefabad at Hyderabad, by which he acquitted the respondents on 7- 8-1982, and the judgment of the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, dated 1-1-1985 by which acquittal revision of the present applicant was dismissed. The facts are that the applicant had filed a report against the private respondents under section 420/34, P.P.C. On 21-2-1980 showing that she was cheated on 28-6-1978. The learned Magistrate issued process against the private respondents who appeared before him. After five witnesses were examined, the respondents moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Which was allowed. The applicant filed a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which ultimately came up before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who after hearing the parties dismissed the same on 1-1-1985.
2. ' The present abashment application has been filed against the said orders.
3. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the private respondents, learned counsel for the State, and have gone through the documents produced along with the application including the two impugned orders.
4. ' It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned trial Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had erred in considering the delay in filing the report as fatal to the case of the applicant. That one Nisar Ahmed Mashir and 2 Police Officers were yet to be examined and therefore, the order passed under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was premature. That as far as observations of the learned two Courts below regarding the evidence that the same was interested were concerned the same were untenable and could not be considered against the applicant. That the applicant had made out a case against the respondents, and therefore, the two orders passed by the Lower Courts were liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions he has cited number of decisions of the High Court as well as of the Honourable Supreme Court.
5. ' The learned counsel for the private respondents has contended that the F.I.R. Was belated by one year and 10 months and no ostensible explanation was given for the same. That P.W. Nisar Ahmed was a Mashir and therefore, the evidence of P.W. Nisar and the two Police Officers would not have improved the case of prosecution in any way. There was nothing in the F.I.R. To show that there was any inducement from the side of the respondents, and therefore, the ingredients of the offence of section 420, P.P.C. Were missing. No acquittal appeal was filed nor any application was moved before the District Magistrate for recommending to the Provincial Government to file acquittal appeal nor any certificate was produced before the Court, and therefore, even the revision was not maintainable before the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge. It was further contended that the present application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is not maintainable under the law and therefore, is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
6. ' The learned counsel for the State has contended that the powers of the Sessions Court and the High Court under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. And section 439, Cr.P.C. Are concurrent and once the matter is decided under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. By the Sessions Court, this Court has no power to interfere with the orders having concurrent jurisdiction.
7. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the documents produced alongwith the quashment application. Admittedly the F.I.R. Is belated by one year and 10 months. However, I agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that the delay in filing criminal complaints is not fatal if it is not mala fide. As far as the question of treatment of evidence and the stage of allowing application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was concerned, section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
8. Provides that the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Can be moved at any stage. More so when in the present case the applicant and five witnesses were examined. I agree with the two Courts below that the evidence of Nisar Ahmed and the two Police Officers would not have improved the case of prosecution in any way. As far as the treatment of evidence was concerned, I am sorry, I do not agree with the learned Advocate, because this is a matter in which the acquittal revision was dismissed, and this application was filed for abashment of the two orders. Even if I take a different view of the evidence, yet this matter has arisen out of the acquittal order, I cannot set aside the acquittal order on this ground. Even the present application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Was not maintainable inasmu ch as section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is meant for correcting illegality, and/or giving effect to the provisions of the Code. Of course this Court can interfere with the order passed by the Sessions Judge on revision under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. But in exceptional cases with a view to correct any illegality, or to give effect to the provisions of the Code, or in order to do complete justice between the parties, and this is not a case of such exceptional nature where powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Should be excercised.
9. ' As far as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are concerned they are distinguishable and were not applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the present application has been filed against the order of acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. And the judgment dismissing the revision against acquittal by the Sessions Judge. The case reported in 1985 SCMR 257 relied upon by the learned Advocate is with utmost respect distinguishable inasmuch it did not arise out of order of acquittal nor there was any order passed by the Sessions Judge dismissing revision against acquittal. Moreover it arose out of Labour cases, in which facts were different.
10. ' In view of the above discussion I am of the considered view that this application does not merit consideration and the same is dismissed.