KASINATH BISWAL Vs. HINA BHOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision which has been referred to Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court raises an important question of law, namely, whether the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") can be exercised notwithstanding the bar contained in S.397(3) of the Code in a second revision where the aggrieved party has already approached the Sessions Judge in revision. Even though the learned single Judge who had referred the matter to the Division Bench was prima facie of the view that in appropriate cases, the powers under S.482 of the Code can be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, yet in view of a Bench decision of this Court reported in (1975) 41 Cut LT (656), he thought it appropriate that the matter should be referred to a Division Bench.

(2.) The petitioners are the accused persons against whom the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has taken cognisance of offences under Ss. 302/323/34, Indian Penal Code. The petitioners preferred a criminal revision to the Sessions Judge, Puri, and the learned Sessions Judge by order dt. 15th of Dec. 1979, has dismissed the revision. The petitioners thereafter have filed the present revision invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under S.482 of the Code.

(3.) Before the learned single Judge, Mr. R.K. Mohapatra appearing for the opposite party had raised two preliminary objections, namely (i) the order taking cognisance is an interlocutory order and, therefore, the revision is not maintainable as contemplated under S.397(2) of the Code, and (ii) the revision having been filed before the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge having refused to interfere with the order of cognisance, a second revision does not lie in view of S.397(3) of the Code and further since a second revision is prohibited under the Code, the High Court cannot exercise its inherent jurisdiction under S.482 of the Code. But before the Division Bench Mr. Mohapatra did not raise his objection on the ground of non-maintainability of a revision as the order taking cognisance is an interlocutory order, but reiterated his second ground of objection.