PRABHAKAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case cognizance for the offence under Sec. 420 and 120-B Penal Code had been taken by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramganj Mandi vide order dated 1.7.1983 against the accused petitioner alongwith other co-accused. The said order appears to have been agitated before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Kota, but learned Addl. Sessions Judge declined to dispose of the revision application of the petitioner on merits on the ground that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was interlocutory order and a revision petition under Sec. 397 Cr.RC. does not lie against such order. He. therefore, dismissed the application on 16.3.94, directing the Magistrate at the same time to reconsider his order dated 1.7.1983 in the light of the documents to be submitted by the accused petitioner. The accused-petitioner moved an application before the learned Magistrate on 4.4.94 and the same is reported to be still pending for his orders.

(2.) It is really surprising that the application dated 4.4.94 is still pending for orders by the learned Magistrate. It is expected from the learned Magistrate to dispose of the said application within fortnight and submit his report to this court on 19.12.97. He would dispose of such application in view of the orders passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 16.3.94 and also in view of the fact as that re-calling his earlier order dated 1.7.83 does not amount of reviewing or revising in the said order and he is competent to recall that order.