JOSEPH ABRAHAM Vs. THANKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL. R. P. Nos. 409 and 411 of 1974 have been referred to a Division Bench since the question involved is one of importance and of frequent occurrence and an authoritative decision is necessary for laying down the procedure in future in entertaining criminal revisions by this Court. We extract below the reference order in full: "under the new Cr. P. Code, Sessions Judges have been given wider and plenary powers of revision equal or almost equal to those of the High Court as could be seen from S. 399 and 401. In view of these provisions it requires to be settled as a matter of practice whether in cases where the parties can obtain effective relief at the Sessions Court, the High Court should entertain revision. I think it proper that the question is considered by a Bench. Place this revision before a Bench early next week, if possible on monday as it is represented that the matter is urgent".

(2.) CRL. R. P. No. 409 of 1974 arises from an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam, in an application under S. 488 of the old Cr. P. C. CRL. R. P. No. 411 of 1974 arises from an order of the Sub divisional Magistrate, Perintalmanna, in proceedings under S. 145 of the CRL. P. C. The petitioners have come to this Court direct without moving the Sessions court. The question to be considered is whether the new Code enacts a procedure different from the one followed hitherto.

(3.) THE new amended sections mark a distinct departure from the old section in certain important respects. Before the new Act, the sessions Judge and the District Magistrate could entertain any revision petition but could pass effective orders only against orders by which complaints were dismissed under S. 203 or S. 204 (3) or where a person was discharged. In all other cases, the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate had to refer the matter to this Court for final orders.