VI AI PAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A charge-under Section 392/506/34 Indian Penal Code having framed against the petitioner, he has come up in revision under Section 435/439 Criminal Procedure Code . to this Court. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner should have approached the Court of Session before coming to this court in revision. He has drawn my attention to the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume 5, Chapter IA, Rule 3, which lays down that the Deputy Registrar will not receive petitions for revision of orders of original courts in non-appealable cases unless the applicant files with his petition a copy of the order of the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate as the case may be to show that he has applied to one or the other and his petition has been refused. Admittedly the petitioner did not go to the Sessions Judge in revision and has come directly to this Court.

(2.) Mr. D. R. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this Court has a right to entertain the revision directly, and petition should not be dismissed because the petitioner has not approached the Sessions Judge first.

(3.) It is no doubt true that this Court has got the power to entertain a revision petition despite the failure of the applicant to approach the Sessions Jud?e before coming to this Court. It is also true that the revisional powers can be exercised by this Court sue moto without any one applying for the same. However, Rule 3 referred to above was framed by this Court presumably to have the advantage of the opinion of the Sessions Judge in revisional matters. All the High Courts in India follow the practice of directing the petitioner to approach the Sessions Judge before invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. I see no reason to depart from that practice and set up an unhealthy precedence of allowing the petitioners to approach this Court directly in revision.