B C SHARMA Vs. BHAGWATI ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner and others in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi on 29.7.1995 alleging commission of offence under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by them. The Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance upon the complaint and issued processes against the persons arraigned. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner moved the trial Court for dropping proceedings initiated against him on the ground that on 19.1.1991 he had resigned from the post of Director of the company and had no concern with the company on the date of issue of the offending cheque i.e. on 2.6.95. By the order dated 28.10.97, the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved the Additional Sessions Judge by filing a revision, which was also dismissed vide orders dated 12.8.1998 passed in Crl.Revision No. 137/97. Not satisfied with the dismissal of the revision, the petitioner has come up before this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel sub- Section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. bars the second revision and this court cannot act as second revisional court under the garb of exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in G.M. Hegde vs. S. Bangarappa (1995) 2 All Cri. L.R. 211 and Dharampal and others Vs. Smt. Ramshri and others (AIR 1993 SC 1361), Deepti Vs. Akhil Rai and Others 1995 S.C.C. (Cr) 1020 and decisions of this Court in K.T.Zimik Vs. Government of N.C.T. Delhi 1999 (iii) AD (Crl.) D.H.C. 341 (1993) D.L.T. 267. As against the said authorities, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Jain Vs. State of Delhi (1998) 8 SCC 770, which lays down that although a second revision petition does not lie before the High Court when one is dismissed by the court of Session, still the proceedings of the court of Session are open to scrutiny by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) In Krishan and Another Vs. Krishnaveni and Another J.T. 1997 (1) S.C. 657, the Apex Court had occasion to consider the question : whether in view of the bar of second revision under sub-Section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C., inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ? Explaining the scope and power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., their Lordships have observed as under :-