DINESHCHANDRA BHARADWAJ Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is at the instance of the two applications of legal practitioners at the tahsil place who have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200 each by the Revenue Court of Tahsildar on finding them to be the offence for the punishment under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 480 of the Old Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicants preferred an appeal before the Sub -Divisional Officer in accordance with the provisions of section 426 of the Code. The finding about their liability and the sentence of fine having been upheld by the appellate Court, the applicant approached the Sessions Court seeking interference in revision in accordance with the provisions of section 436 read with section 439 of the Code. The Sessions Court however, dismissed the revision on the preliminary ground that the same was not tenable in as much as the Court who heard the proceedings could not be regarded as inferior Criminal Courts. The applicants have now come up 'in revision.

(2.) ON behalf of the State, Shri K.S. Shrivastava Advocate raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this revision in accordance with the provisions of section 439 of the Code by contending that the view taken by the Sessions Court was absolutely correct and was in consonance with view already taken by this High Court in the case of Barrister V.P. Verma v. King Emperor 33 MPLF 11=AIR 1947 Nag. 36. The argument put forth was that despite the fact that the Tahsildar took cognizance a of the offence punishable under section 223 of the Indian Penal Code in accordance with the provisions of section 480 of the Code and sentenced the applicants to a fine of Rs. 200 the said Revenue Court could not be treated as inferior Criminal Court so as to make interference possible by this Court in a revision preferred under section 439 of the Code. It was further contended that similar was the position about the appellate order made by the Sub -Divisional Officer in appeal. The Court of the Sub -Divisional Officer was also a Revenue Court. The appeal was heard and entertained by the said Court as the appellate Revenue Court.

(3.) I have gone through the aforesaid decision. It is true that the learned judge of the Patna High Court had taken the view that since the language used in section 439 of the Code, did not specifically restrict the term any, proceeding' only to those an inferior criminal Court, as has been specifically done in other section like section 435 etc., the orders made by such revenue or civil Courts under section 486 or 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be revised by the High Court by invoking its revisional jurisdiction under section 439 of the Code irrespective of the fact that the aforesaid Courts might actually not be inferior criminal Courts. During the course of hearing, a reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Thakurdas v. State of M.P. 1978 JLJ 165=AIR 1978 Supreme Court.