VENU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition purporting to be under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in short the Code, to issue appropriate direction to the learned single Judge of this Court to issue notice in Crl. R. P. No. 7 of 1986 after restoring the same to file and dispose of the matter according to law to secure the ends of justice.

(2.) The facts leading to this petition are as follows:- The petitioner was charged with offences punishable under S.279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C. No. 485 of 1983 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the II Class, Trichur. The learned Magistrate found him guilty of the said offences, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two months under S.338 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. He challenged the conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court, Trichur. The learned Sessions Judge made over that appeal to the Assistant Sessions Court. Trichur, where it was entertained as Crl. Appeal No. 10 of 1984. The Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. Criminal Revision Petition No. 7 of 1986 was filed by the petitioner challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the appellate court. When that revision came up for admission on 6-1-1986. after hearing the counsel for the petitioner I dismissed the revision finding that there is no error, illegality, or impropriety in the orders passed by the courts below. It is against that disposal of the revision petition that this petition is filed, as stated earlier, purporting to be under S.482 of the Code.

(3.) According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, against the decision of the Assistant Sessions Judge he could have preferred a revision under S.397 of the Code before the Sessions Court, Trichur, because the Assistant Sessions Court is a court of inferior jurisdiction when compared with the Sessions Court. If he had moved the Sessions Court in revision, according to the learned counsel, that court was bound to admit the revision without any preliminary hearing and in such a situation he would have had an opportunity to argue the entire case on merits referring to the testimony of witnesses. That opportunity has been lost by his approaching this court in revision. The learned counsel further proceeds to argue that in case he had moved the Sessions Court in revision and failed, he would have had another chance to move this Court by resort to S.482 of the Code. I do not find my way to agree with the learned counsel in any of these submissions.