LALLAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. Narayan, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 28. 1. 82 recorded by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Revision No. 121 of 1981. This revision itself was directed against the order dated 17. 9. 81 passed by the S. D. M. , Rudrapur in proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. registered as Criminal Caseno. 1l/17of 1980.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the opposite party No. 2 and have also gone through the record of the case. It appears that the proceedings before the court of Magistrate had commenced on an application of one Narendra Dubey, the opposite party No. 2 here. What happened and now the application was taken by the Magistrate is not made out, but it appears that somehow Sri Lallan Prasad, the petitioner here, made an application before the Magistrate informing that there was no apprehension of breach of peace and that the proceedings were not proper. This also shows that an attachment had already been made before this application was moved before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 17. 9. 81, observed that there was no occasion to think that the existence of apprehension of breach of peace had ceased to exist and consequently there was no occasion to drop the proceedings and rejected the applica tion. He directed the case to proceed. This order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge. A perusal of the judgment of the Sessions Judge snows that the party had not put in appearance may be for any reason. The Sessions Judge was of the view that the order of the Magistrate was an interlocutory in nature and, therefore, a revision could not be entertained. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has come before this court.

(3.) THE powers of the Sessions Judge or any revisional court are not limited by the arguments or otherwise of the petitioner or the other party. Once the petition is enter tained it becomes the duty of the Sessions Judge to look into the entire case and come to a proper conclusion. Once a revision has been admitted, even if the petitioner did not appear before the Sessions Judge, it could not have been so easijy decided. THE order of the Sessions Judge was thus pronounced with a material omission which might have resulted in miscarriage of justice.