SUSHEEL DHAR Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions are directed against order dated 31st march, 2006 of 1st Additional Sessions judge, Jammu whereby while upholding judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sub-Judge, jammu's Order of 9. 9. 2005, he had rejected petitioners' revision petitions saying that learned Judicial Magistrate was right in holding that the Court had the jurisdiction to try the petitioners in the two police challans which had been filed against them under Sections 406, 420, 120b RPC.

(2.) RAISING a preliminary objection as to maintainability of these revision petitions, learned State counsel submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 435 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prohibiting the maintainability of second revision, the petitioners are disentitled to maintain their revision petitions.

(3.) CONCEDING the preliminary objection of learned State counsel, Mr. Abhinav Sharma submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers to correct the error which learned Session Judge had committed in upholding learned Judicial Magistrate's order whereby he had held that the offence punishable under Section 406 RPC had been committed by the petitioners within his jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that as the misappropriated amount is alleged to have been received at Indore, so the courts in Jammu would have no jurisdiction to try the petitioners for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406,420 and 120b RPC.