NAGAPPA Vs. LEELAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 115, C.P.C., has been filed from the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 1995, delivered by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli (Sri H.G. Ramesh) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 124 of 1995, arising out of judgment and order dated 31-3-1995, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Hubli, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 122 of 1992, allowing the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge had allowed the Criminal Revision in part and modified the order of maintenance as mentioned in the order dated 3-8-1995. Criminal Revision No. 124 of 1995 itself had been filed by the present revision petitioner.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, the present revision under Section 115, C.P.C. is completely misconceived. Under Section 115, C.P.C., the High Court is entitled to call for the record of any case decided by the subordinate Court i.e., the subordinate to such High Court within the meaning of the expression 'subordinate Court' as defined in the Code itself. Section 3 of the C.P.C. defines the subordinates of Court, provides that for the purpose of the Civil Procedure Code, the District Judge is subordinates to the High Court and every Civil Court is a Court subordinate to District Court and every Court of the Small Causes is subordinate to High Court and District Court. Thus, under Section 115 of the C.P.C., revision is maintainable from the orders of subordinate Civil Courts and not from the orders of Sessions Judge or Judicial Magistrates which are subordinate Criminal Courts. There are two separate procedural codes, one is known as Civil Procedural Code and other is the Criminal Procedure Code. The Criminal Procedure Code under Section 397 provides for revision from the orders of Sessions Court as well as of subordinate Criminal Courts to the High Court or the Sessions Judges Court. It is also provided under Section 399 that if a person has filed a Criminal Revision from the order of subordinate Criminal Court and revision has been decided against him either in whole or in part, he is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 and no second revision will lie to the High Court at his instance. So Criminal Procedure Code debars a second revision challenging the order of revision by the person who had filed the first revision. When there is a bar, no further revision will lie or to be entertained at his instance, because second revision cannot be filed by a party who had filed a revision before Sessions Judge. This bar cannot be side-tracked and cannot be allowed to be side-tracked by any party by taking recourse to proceedings under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 does not extend to subordinate Criminal Court. The two codes are complete by themselves.

(3.) Thus considered, in my opinion, the present revision petition is completely misconceived and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.