DHARMARAJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration is whether the inherent powers of the High Court can be invoked in a case where revision is barred under Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Matter has been referred to the Division Bench by Thomas, J.

(2.) Petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under Section 55(s) of the Abkari Act. In C.C. 284 of 1989 Magistrate found him guilty under Section 55(a) of the Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine ofRs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprison men t for a further period of three months. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Assistant Sessions Judge. Revision was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. It is against the order in CrI.R.P. 69 of 1992 that the above CrI.M.C. has been filed before this Court.

(3.) Section 397 of the Code enables he High Court or the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court for the purpose of satisfying as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. Sub-section (3) provides that if an application under this section has been made by TI any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, na further application by the same person shall be entertained by either of them. As the Sessions Judge has rejected the revision petition, the aggrieved party cannot certainly invoke the revisional powers of the High Court. In other words, second revision is barred.