SANTI RANJAN MAJUMDAR Vs. ALO BANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. C. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This is a petition under S. 397, Cr. P.C. directed against the order dated 3-11-1998 passed by Sri S. Sikdar, I/C, Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur awarding maintenance to the petitioner No. 2 under S. 125, Cr. P.C. Opposite party has not filed revision against the impugned order before the learned Sessions Judge and has come direct to the High Court. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that under S. 397, Cr. P.C. the High Court and the learned Sessions Judge have concurrent revisional jurisdiction.

(3.) It is true that under S. 397, Cr. P.C. both the High Court and the Sessions Judge have concurrent revisional jurisdiction. But as a matter of established practice which was also under old Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the revision is filed first before the Sessions Judge then before the High Court. The obvious advantages are the conveniences of the parties and the witnesses who appear before the Court, it is very much convenient to both the parties to approach the Court of learned Sessions Judge situate in the District than to approach the High Court. Secondly, the High Court is not crowded with the cases. Thirdly, the High Court has the advantage of having the views of the learned Sessions Judge in case the matter comes before the High Court eventually. In cases of special, exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, the party may come direct to the High Court in revision. No such special, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances have been urged or pointed out by the petitioner. The proper remedy for the petitioner is to file revision before the learned Sessions Judge.