BALCHAND Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Magistrate passed the order in pursuance of the finding of the Munsif as under old Criminal Procedure Code the matter was referred by the Magistrate to the Munsif to determine the possession. THE present revisionist then filed a revision against the order of the Magistrate, namely, Criminal Revision No. 11 of 1972 which was dismissed on 17-9-1973. I had on the previous date directed that the present revisionist should have filed the certified copy of the judgment of the Munsif also because so far as the Magistrate's order is concerned it simply proceeds according to the Munsif's finding as provided under the old Criminal Procedure Code. THE certified copy of the judgment has not been filed. But the other side has made available a copy of that judgment though not certified as such I am placing it on the record. One of the preliminary points raised is that the second revision itself is not maintainable. Section 397(3) as well as Section 399(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly provides that if a revision has been preferred a second revision by the same party and person would be barred. This has also been held in the case of Jagir Singh v. Ranvir Singh. In fact in the case of Sarju v. Baba Din, also it was held that as second revision would be barred by the same party. This is also the view taken in the case of Khem Singh v. Nathu Ram this Court. I therefore held that the second revision filed by the revisionist is misconceived and does not lie when a first revision had been preferred in which the order of the Magistrate was upheld. In fact, Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held that a circumvention would not be permitted and actually if the first revisional court bas upheld the order of the Magistrate the second revision by the same party would in substance and reality be directed against the order of the Magistrate itself and two revisions would not be entertained if preferred by the same party. This view was taken in view of the language of the present provision of the Criminal Procedure Code otherwise also it will be encouraging the needless prolongation if two revisions are entertained against the same order by the Magistrate and preferred by the same party. THE revision is therefore dismissed. THE stay order is vacated. Revision dismissed.