DAS ISAAC Vs. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order under S.253(2), Criminal Procedure Code, discharging the accused persons in C.C. No. 119 of 1955 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Devikulam. The revision has already been admitted and it now comes up before me for disposal.

(2.) Under S.436, Criminal Procedure Code besides the High Court, the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate are competent to entertain a revision and order further enquiry. It is the settled practice of almost every High Court in India that where concurrent revisional jurisdiction is conferred on courts of different grades, the aggrieved party should approach the inferior among such courts first and not approach the High Court directly. The Travancore Cochin High Court has invariably been following that practice with respect to orders of discharge passed by the Subordinate Magistracy and that would seem to have been the practice in the Madras High Court also - see Gopobondo Behera v. Venkatesam Panlulu, AIR 1924 Mad. 228 and Kasi Viswanatham v. Madan Singh, AIR 1948 Mad. 422 .- I fail to see why a different practice should be adopted in the Kerala High Court. So far as I know the usual practice in this Court also has been not to entertain revision petitions against orders of discharge passed by Subordinate Magistrates.

(3.) A recent Division Bench of the Andhra High Court consisting of Subba Rao, C.J. and Satyanarayana Raju, J. had occasion to review the case law of the different High Courts bearing on the subject and it has been held that it would be a salutary practice for the High Court not to entertain a revision unless the aggrieved party approached an inferior court in the first instance and that rule should not be deviated from except on special, exceptional or extraordinary grounds - vide Ramayya v. Venkata, AIR 1956 Andhra 97. In that case the revision was against an order passed under S.145, Criminal Procedure Code. It is distinctly pointed out there that in the Madras High Court, against orders of discharge passed by the subordinate courts the High Court seldom entertained a revision directly. As stated earlier that has been the practice in the Travancore-Cochin High Court as also in this High Court so far. In the circumstances I hold that the revision should be dismissed in limine and I order accordingly,