CERENA DSOUZA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this revision came for hearing, preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Agarwal for respondent No. 3 that even though the High Court and Sessions Court has concurrent jurisdiction to entertain revisions, in view of the judgment of this Court in two cases, namely, judgment of Justice Patil reported in 1998 (5) Bom. C. R. (P. B.)546 : 1999 Cri. L. J. 122 (Padmanabh Keshav Kamat v. R. Kantak and others), and another judgment of Justice Lodha 1996 Cri. L. J. 172 (Tejram s/o Mahadeorao Gaikwad v. Smt. Sunanda Tejram Gaikwad and others), this Court should not entertain this revision unless exceptional circumstances or exceptional case is made out.

(2.) AS against this it was contended by Mr. Ponda that when concurrent jurisdiction is conferred upon the High Court and the Sessions Court it was for the litigant to make choice of the Forum and there could not be any legal bar upon a person if he moves the High Court directly without going to the Sessions Court. He contended that if revision before the Sessions Court is dismissed then the party cannot come to the High Court because second revision is barred. He therefore contended that in such an eventuality the petitioner who have moved this Court in revision jurisdiction will be without any remedy. Mr. Ponda relied upon the judgment reported in 1975 U. C. R. (Bom.)402 : 1976 Cri. L. J. 1604 (Madhavlal Narayanlal Pittle v. Chandrashekhar Chaturvedi and others), and A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 381 (Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and another)4.

(3.) AS against this, Mr. Shirodkar who was supporting Mr. Agarwal contended that if the revision is dismissed by the Sessions Court, it is not that they have no remedy but they can come to the High Court under sections 397 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.