MOHD RAFIQUE Vs. MOHD RAFIQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition u/s. 482, Cr. P.C., has been preferred against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Tonk, dt. 17th Jan., '85. The learned Sessions Judge passed this order in a revision petition filed before him against the order of the SDM, Tonk, dt. 21st Feb., '83 and 15th Mar., '83, on application u/ss. 133 and 142, Cr. P.C.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Garg that this application u/s. 482, Cr. P.C., is not maintainable. He argued that the petitioner had submitted a revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Tonk, which was dismissed vide his order dt. 17th Jan. '85, and so, now a fresh application u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. before this Court, is not maintainable.

(3.) I may like to mention here that the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, seems to be a confused person. In his order, he has observed that the learned Magistrate passed the order u/s. 142, Cr. P.C., which was a preliminary order, and final order should be passed by the learned Magistrate after inquiry. These orders of the learned Magistrate being interim orders, no revision could lie against them. He has observed that in such cases, application u/s. 482, Cr. P.C., is maintainable in High Court, and he had no power to entertain such applications. However, in spite of these observations, the learned Sessions Judge disposed of the revision petition on merits, and rejected it. The learned Sessions Judge should not have disposed of the revision petition on merits. When the order of the learned Magistrate was an interim order, the learned Sessions Judge should have rejected the revision petition on the ground that no revision lies. So, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, is incorrect and he could not understand the correct position of law. The objection of Mr. Garg has no substance. This Court has ample power to entertain such matters u/s. 482, Cr. P. C.