MD. ATAUR RAHMAN Vs. NITYANANDA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions involve the interpretation of Sub -article (5) of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and this common judgment of ours will dispose of both of them.

(2.) CRIMINAL Revision No. 191/75 arises out of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 hereinafter 'the Cr P.C. in which possession was declared in favour of the opposite parties. The petitioner then filed an application in revision before the Sessions Judge under Section 397(1) of Cr. P.C. The application was rejected. The petitioner then filed this application before this Court. It came up for hearing before one of us (Islam J.) sitting singly. When the petitioner was confronted with Sub -section (3) of Sec -397 of the Cr. P.C. which bars a second application in revision by the same person, counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed the application also under Article 227 of the Constitution, and that the case required interpretation of Sub -article (5) of Article 227 of the Constitution. Whereupon the petition was referred to a Division Bench.

(3.) THE only point that falls for our consideration is whether when an application in revision by a party before the Sessions Judge fails, the same party is entitled to make an application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the impugned order of the Magistrate. As stated earlier, the references were made on the ground that they needed interpretation of Sub -article (5) of Article 227. We need not ourselves examine and interprete this Sub -article, as in the meantime, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have already authoritatively interpreted the scope of Sub -article (5) of Article 227 in the case of Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh reported in : 1979CriLJ318 . in which their Lordships have observed: