MOHAN LAL Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Powers of revision and of granting anticipatory bail have been conferred on the High Court as well as the Court of Session by Sections 397 and 438 of the Cr. P. C., 1973 (referred to as the "new Code"). Is it incumbent upon an applicant to approach the Court of Session before moving the High Court? This question has been referred to the Full Bench. REVISION:

(2.) We will first deal with the revisional jurisdiction. Cri. P. C., 1898 (referred to as the "old Code") also conferred concurrent revisional jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Session as well as the District Magistrate. However, Subsection (4) of Section 435 of old Code provided that if any application had been made either to the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate, no further application shall be entertained by the other of them. But no restriction was placed by the statute on the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. An applicant could make an application before the Court of Session and thereafter before the High Court or directly before the High Court. But as a matter of practice the High Courts insisted that an application should be made before the Court of Session before moving the High Court in revision. Some of the High Courts had even made such a rule. The object was to save time of the High Court and also to have advantage of the opinion of the Court of Session.

(3.) Though the old Code conferred revisional jurisdiction on the Sessions Judge, his powers to grant relief were limited. He could order further enquiry where a complaint had been dismissed before issuing process to the accused: (Section 436). He could also direct the commitment for trial of an accused wrongly discharged if the trial was exclusively by the Court of Session: (Section 437). But the Sessions Judge had no power to alter or reverse any sentence or order. He could only make a recommendation to the High Court for the same: (Section 438).