GRAMWASI SHEODANPUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revisions-petition filed under sec. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Old Code, by the villagers of village Sheodanpur, through Nand Ram, Panch, of the Gram Pan-chayat, against an order of the Sessions Judge, Sri Garganagar, dated 11th September, 1974, by which an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, on 25th February, 1974, in proceedings under sec. 133 of the Old Code was set aside in revision on the ground that the villagers of Sheodanpur could not lead satisfactory evidence to show that any unlawful obstruction was caused by Roop Das in the public way. Aggrieved by this order the villagers of Sheodanpur have come-up in revision to this Court.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Hastimal Parekh for the petitioner, Mr. R. N. Bishnoi for the non-petitioner Roop Das and Dr. S. S. Bhandawat, Public Prose-eutor, for the State. It is not necessary for me to decide this revision petition on merits because there is a glaring manifest error in the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The error is that the Sessions Judge did not dispose of the revision petition before him in accordance with the provisions of the old Code. At the time when the revision-petition was filed before him by Roop Das against the order of the Sub-Divisional, Magistrate, the old Code was in force. The record further reveals that immediately before the date on which the new Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the new Code came into force, the revision-petition filed by Roop Das was pending in the court of the Sessions Judge and, therefore, it had to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the old Code Sub-sec. (2) of section 484 of the new Code clearly provides a savings clause which requires that any appeal, application trial, inquiry or investigation pending in a court immediately before the commencement of the new Code shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the old Code and the provisions of the new Code shall not be applicable to such a case. It has been held by the Supreme Court in P. Philip vs. Director, Enforcement, New Delhi (l) that the word 'application' used in clause (a) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 484 of the new Code includes an application-in-revision under sec 435 of the old Code. Hence, if the Sessions Judge was of the view that the order passed by the sub-Divisional Magistrate was manifestly erroneous, he was bound to make a reference to the High Court under sec. 438 of the old Code, because the revision-petition was pending in his Court on the date (i. e. 1-4-1974) on which the new Code came into force and it had to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the old Code in view of clause (a) of sab-sec (2) of sec. (484) of the new Code. In this view of the matter, the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar was clearly in error in disposing of the revision-petition while holding that he was competent to accept the revision-petition and set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate without making a reference to the High Court under sec. 438, of the old Code.