CHANDRAMANI SETHI Vs. PURNA CHANDRA BEHERA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is the Petitioner in this revision invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 25-6-1986.

(2.) The short facts are that the opposite parties were convicted under Sections 447 and 504, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on both counts and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of thirty days each. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate was challenged by preferring an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1985 and the said appeal was transferred by the Sessions Judge to the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, on hearing the arguments of both sides reserved the judgment, but on finding that an appeal is not maintainable, instead of dismissing the appeal submitted the appeal records back to the Court of the Sessions Judge for consideration as to whether the appeal can be converted to revision. This was obviously done as the Additional Sessions Judge was not authorised to convert an appeal to revision. The Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated. 25-6-1986 converted the appeal to a revision and again transferred the same to the Second Additional Sessions Judge to be disposed of in accordance with law.

(3.) Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, rises several important questions of law requiring interpretation of different provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Mr. Mohanty, (i) the Additional Sessions Judge had no Jurisdiction to transfer an appeal pending before him to the Court of Session and, therefore, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 21-6-1986 must be held to be without jurisdiction; (ii) the Sessions Judge has no power to convert an appeal to a revision as there is no such provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure and undoubtedly, the Sessions Judge has no inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code; (iii) Even assuming that the Sessions Judge could have exercised that power, he could not have done so without hearing the parties. The impugned order of the Sessions Judge having been passed without hearing the parties, the same must be held to be void; and (iv) The Sessions Judge could not transfer a revision to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge.