VINOD KUMR KUKREJA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GRIDHAR Malviya, J. Vinod Kumar Kukreja and Vipal Kumar Kukreja have filed the present revision in the High Court against the judgment and order dated 27-2-1989 of the IV Additional District Judge. Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 1981, whereby he had set aside the order dated 27-11-1987 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in Case No, 259 of 1986 - State v. Vinod Kumar Kukreja and others. b which he accepted the application of the accused persons to try them himself under Sections 330, 323 and 504, I. P. C. . . as accord ing to them no offence under Section 306, I. P, C. was made out against them.

(2.) AT the stage of admission of the revision in the High Court, a question was raised before the learned single Judge whether the revision against the order of revising authority viz IV Additional District Judge was maintainable in the High Court or not Considering this question to be of general importance, the learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length and alter perusing the cases cited by them deemed it proper to refer the following question to a larger Bench : Whether a revision against an order of the Sessions Judge passed in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, concurrent with the High Court, in a revision preferred by a party against the order of an inferior court lies to the High Court by the other party

(3.) A perusal of these two sections made it absolutely clear that the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situate within its local jurisdiction for the purposes enumerated under Section 397 itself. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge or for that matter that of the Sessions Judge is a court inferior to the High Court and as such the High Court has full jurisdiction to entertain a revision against the orders of the Sessions Court. However, sub clause (3) of Section 397, Cr. P. C. is in the form of an exception to sub-section (1) of Section 397, which gives jurisdic tion to the Courts to entertain revisions against the orders of the inferior criminal courts. This exception is on the right of a parry to maintain only one revision with the result that in cases where a person has first challenged the order of the inferior court in the Court of Sessions and has not conceded before the Court of Sessions, in that event that 'person has been prevented to make a second applica tion in revision before the High Court. No such exception has been made in the case where the revision has been made in the High Court by a person who had not challenged the order of the first Court in the Court of Sessions. On a plain reading of the section mentioned above, it loaves no room for doubt that a revision by a person in the High Court, who was an opposite-party iu a revision before the Court of Sessions, shall lie to the High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge which has allowed the revision of the person who had challenged the order of a court inferior to the Court of Sessions before the Sessions Judge Even sub-clause (3) of Section 399, Cr. P. C. does not restrict the right of a person who had not preferred a revision earlier against the order of inferior court in the court of Sessions to file a revision in the High Court. Ail that Section 399 (3) says is that where any application in revision is made by any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge in respect of suck person, shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court (emphasis supplied ). Thus the restriction under Section 399 (3) is also imposed in respect of a revision in the High Court by such person who has already preferred a revision in the Court of Sessions and is not applicable to at, opposite-party in a revision which had been filed in the Court of Sessions. Thus the conclusion is irresistible that a revision by a party which was only an opposite-party in the Court of Sessions shall lie in the High Court against an order of Sessions Judge passed in a revision pending before it.