(1.) THIS order shall govern disposal of writ petitions No. 966 of 1994 Jagdish Narayan Sharma v. Katoridevi; 1198 of 1994, Ram Veer v. Urmila and another; 1043 of 1994, Israrul Hasan v. Mst. Babu Anjum and others and 1170 of 1994, Shriram and others v. Devilal and another. In these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the subordinate Courts exercising criminal jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In all these cases, the verdict has gone against the petitioners. The revision petitions preferred before the Court of Sessions have been dismissed. Knowing fully well that a second revision is not competent in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the petitioners have preferred these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The question which arises is whether jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised when inherent or revisional powers cannot be exercised in view of the fact that second revision petition is not competent against an order passed by the Court of Sessions in Revision. The latest decision of the Supreme Court as to maintainability of second revision is reported as Dharam Pal v. Ramshri, AIR 1993 SC 1361. The Supreme Court observed :
(2.) THE other decisions which deal with the power of the High Court to interfere under Section 482 of the Code, where a revision has already been filed under Section 397 may also be noticed. These are Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47; V.C. Shukla v. State, AIR 1980 SC 962. The judgment given in Madhu Limaye's case (supra) was considered later in the case of Delhi Municipality v. Ram Krishna, AIR 1983 SC 67. The observations made in paras 6 and 7 in this regard are relevant and may be noticed as under :-
(3.) THE Supreme Court of India has also considered this aspect of the matter. Thus, in the case of Chandrashekhar Singh v. Siva Ram Singh, 1979 Cri.LJ 13 dealt with this aspect of the matter and observed :