BALKRISHNA SHARMA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision from an order of the District Magistrate of Cawnpore directing that the defence should select three witnesses out of Nos. 1 to 10 and 8 other witnesses out of the remaining lists. The case pending before him is one under Section 124-A, I.P.C.

(2.) A preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies because the applicant has not approached the Sessions Judge in the first instance. No doubt it is the general practice of this Court not to entertain a revision when the applicant could have gone to the superior Court of the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge. But of course, even a settled practice does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court, In Mannu V/s. Emperor [1920] 20 Cr. L.J. 705 and Emperor V/s. Mansur Husain [1919] 41 All. 587, Piggott, J., referred to this practice and yet entertained the revisions. In the case Sharif Ahmad V/s. Qabul Singh A.I.R. 1921 All. 30, a Division Bench in clear terms, declared that there was this practice. Nevertheless they entertained that particular revision and set aside the conviction. In the case Emperor V/s. Bhure Mal A.I.R. 1923 All. 606, which was after the decision of the Division Bench, another learned Judge again referred to the same practice and yet decided the application on the merits. On the other hand my attention has been drawn to two other cases decided by single Judges, where the applications were not entertained: Nathe Singh V/s. Emperor and Jadunandan Misra V/s. Sheophal .

(3.) The present case is however distinguishable. The offence under Section 124-A is triable by either the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge. It is not triable exclusively by the latter. Under Section 408(c), Criminal P.C., an appeal lies from the order of the District Magistrate direct to the High Court and not to the Sessions Court. The propriety of the orders passed by the District Magistrate would therefore have to be considered by the High Court in appeal and not by the Sessions Judge. No case has been brought to my notice in which a revision from an order passed by the District Magistrate where an appeal would have lain direct to the High Court was not entertained simply because the Sessions Judge had not been approached first. I therefore think that I am not precluded from considering the application on the merits.