STATE Vs. C K GULHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was challaned to stand his trial before Chiei Judicial Magistrate, Jammu for an offence under Section 420 R. P. C. for having supplied spurious spare parts of T. M. B. trucks to Salal Hydel Projects, Jammu, some time in the year 1971. The Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged him by his order dated 27-12-1974. A revision against the aforesaid order was taken to Sessions Judge, Jammu, which too was dismissed by him on 30-3-1976. Both these orders have been challenged in this revision petition as being contrary to law and facts.

(2.) A preliminary objection has beeen raised that the revision petition is not maintainable. To sustain it, reliance has been placed upon a Supreme Court decision viz: Jagir Singh, Appellant v. Ranbir Singh in particular, to the following observations occurring therein (Para 4):. . . We are concerned with this provision in this appeal. The object of Section 397 (3) is clear. It is to prevent a multiple exercise of revisional powers and to secure early finality to orders. Any person aggrieved by an order of an inferior Criminal Court is given the option to approach either the Sessions Judge or the High Court and once he exercises the option he is precluded from invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the other authority. The language of Section 397 (3) is clear and peremptory and it does not admit of any other interpretation. We may also mention here that even under Section 435 of the previous Code of Criminal Procedure, while the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate had concurrent jurisdiction, like present Section 397 (3) previous Section 435 (4) provided that if an application under the Section had been made either to the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate no further application shall be entertained by the other of them.

(3.) SECTION 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Central Act No. 2 of 1974) corresponds to Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (State Act No. 23 of 1989 ). Sub-section (3) of Section 397 upon which the aforesaid decision is based reads as under: 397. (1) to (2) xx xx xx xx xx (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.