MANORANJAN NAYAK Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SAMBALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Crl.Revision No.49 of 2005 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case is that the petitioner purchased a Tata 608 Mini Bus bearing Registration No.OR -14A -4743 from one Aftab Alli, who was the original registered owner of the Mini Bus and whose name was in the Registration Certificate. It is alleged that the finance company, namely; Binayak Finance with the help of some persons tried to take over the physical possession of the bus. Consequently, Criminal Case bearing C.T. No.3124 of 2004 was instituted in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur arising out of Sambalpur Town P.S. Case No.197 on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner and the police seized the bus. Thereafter the finance company moved for release of the bus in their favour. The Investigating Officer directed release of the bus in favour of the finance company. But subsequently, on the intervention of the supervising Police Officer it was brought back from the possession of the finance company and released in favour of the petitioner, on which the financier filed a Criminal Misc. Case No.165 of 2004 before the S.D.J.M., Sambalpur u/s. 457, Cr.P.C. The petitioner also moved a similar application, which was registered as Crl. Misc. Case No.171 of 2004. After hearing both the parties, learned S.D.J.M. directed release of the bus in favour of the petitioner, which was challenged by the finance company in Crl. Revision No.48/21 of 2004 -05. It was heard by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Sambalpur and disposed of vide judgment and order dated 31.8.2005 allowing the revision and remanding the matter to the S.D.J.M., Sambalpur for rehearing. Thereafter learned S.D.J.M. passed an order on 7.10.2005 directing release of the bus in favour of the financier, against which the above mentioned criminal revision was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, which was dismissed by the order impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) FIRST of all, it is to be seen whether the power of a revisional Court is only confined to the jurisdictional error or beyond that. In this regard, the provision of Section 397(1), Cr.P.C. is liable to be perused, which provides that the High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. Therefore, in the criminal matters, revisional jurisdiction of the Court is not confined to the jurisdictional error only, but it can make a scrutiny of the order to see its correctness, legality or propriety.