BRUNDABAN RATH Vs. RAMAKRISHNA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is directed against the order of taking cognizance by the S.DJ.M. Jaypore in case No. iCC 21/86 against the petitioners.

(2.) Petitioners were police officers of Jaypore P.S. at the material time. It is alleged that opp. party No.1 Ramakrishna Das, the complainant in a complaint case, was detained by the petitioners and third degree method was adopted to extract certain statements from him while he was in the Police Station. The learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offences under sections 330, 323 and 342 nw 34 I.P.C. and directed issuance of process against the petitioners for their appearance. Against the order of the S.D.J.M., revision was carried to the Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jaypore in C.R.P. No.51/86. The learned AddI. Sessions Judge, Jeypore heard the matter in extenso, and by a reasoned order partly allowed the revision and quashed the order of the S.D J .M. taking cognizance of the offences under sections 330 and 342 I.P.C. He, however, maintained the order of taking cognizance under section 323 I.P.C. Being thus aggrieved the petitioners have approached this court for quashing the order dated 20-11-1986 of the learned AddI. Sessions Judge, Jeypore.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel on both sides. For two reasons I am not inclined to allow the petition. The first is regarding the maintainability of the petition. Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down as follows: Sec. 397(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by either of them. The purport of this provision is very clear that the person aggrieved is to choose his forum to prefer revision either before the Sessions Court or before the High Court, both having concurrent jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining a revision application against the order of subordinate court. The provision laid down in section 399(3) Cr.P.C. dealing with the powers of revision of the Sessions Judge makes it further clear and peremptory which says Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by High Court or any other court.