AKBARALI JAHASAHEB Vs. ABASAHEB JAHASAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sub Divisional Magistrate Chikodi has parsed a preliminary order under S.145(1) CrPC for attaching the properties said to be in dispute in Misc.3/1973. The first respondent here in has filed a Criminal Revision Petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge Belgaum, challenging the said order of the SDM and the learned Sessions Judge acceding to the prayer of the first respondent has passed an interim Order suspending the operation of the said order of the SDM. This revisiop petition is therefore directed against the said order of the learned Sessions Judge,

(2.) What is contended by Sri Suresh Joshi learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge could not have entertained the revision petition and passed the impugned order. In other words, his submission is that under S.439 CrPC, against an order passed by a Sub-Divl Magistrate under S.145(1) CrPC a revision lies directly to the High Court and as such it was not open to the learned Sessions Judge to, entertain the revision petition. It is therefore urged that the order of the learned Sessions Judge entertaining the revision petition and passing the impugned order may be set aside.

(3.) It is difficult to countenante the contention or to accede to, the submission of Sri Joshi. It is not disputed that the Court of the SDM is a criminal Court inferior to the Court of Sessions and hence under S.435 CrPC the Seesions Judge can call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within the local limits of his jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such inferior Criminal Court. Then under S.438 CrPC, the Sessions Judge after examining under S.435, CrPC the record of any proceeding, can make a report for the orders of the High Court the result of such examination for all or any of the purposes mentioned therein. Reding therefore Ss.435 & 438 of the CrPC it becomes clear that there is no legal bar for the Sessions Judge to entertain a revision petition against the order of the Sub-Divl. Magistrate acting under S.435 CrPC. Indeed in State of Mysore v. Shivappa (1971) 2 Mys.L.J. 54. this Court has pointed out that the Court of Sub-Divl. Magistrate is a Criminal Court inferior to the Court of Sessions and hence the Sessions Judge acting under S.435 CrPC can revise an order of the Sub-Divl. Magistrate declining to make an order under S.112 CrPC. It is no doubt true that in that case this Court was dealing with a proceeding under S.110 CrPC and it is also time that the Sessions Judge cannot set aside the order brought before him in revision in view of the limited power conferred on him under those provisions. But, that does not in any way infringe his competency to entortatin the revision petition for the purposes mentioned in S.435 CrPC. Sri Joshi is not in a position to cite any decision where it is held that the Sessions Judge is legally precluded from entertaining a revision petition against such order. In my opinion his contention is misconceived and is there fore rejected.