SRIPAT NARAIN SINGH Vs. GAHBAR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision of an order of a Magistrate of the First Class of Ghazipur, dated the 4 October 1926, convicting the applicant of an offence under Section 427, I.P.C., and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 10. The application in revision is based on the ground that the Deputy Magistrate, before convicting the applicant of the offence of mischief, was bound to find that the property in respect of which the mischief was alleged to be committed belonged to the complainant.

(2.) The matter has already been in revision before this Court on a reference from the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur. It appears that when the matter was up before me on the reference from the Sessions Judge a vakalatnama had been filed by Mr. Pandey. Mr. Pandey was not called upon by me to argue or appear in the case. It is possible that I was not even aware of any pleader having been engaged by the applicant. The reference by the Sessions Judge impugned the order of the Magistrate on precisely the same ground as that order is being impugned by the present application in revision. The consequence is that this application in revision is calling in question, on certain grounds, an order of a Magistrate which order was previously considered on a reference from the Sessions Judge impugning that order on precisely the same grounds. In these circumstances it is clearly for the applicant in respect of the present application to show reason why the application is maintainable.

(3.) Mr. Goyle who, though not appearing in respect of the previous application, appears on behalf of the applicant to argue the present application, gives as the reason why, notwithstanding the matter having been already decided, this application in revision should and must be entertained, the following. He says that Mr. Pandey had right to appear in respect of the previous application, and consequently the decision on the previous application was bad because he was not called on to appear. He further adds that he has a right in law to appear, at any rate, to support the present application. Now Section 440, Criminal P.C., is very explicit on the matter. That section runs: No party has any tight to be heard either personally or by pleader before any Court when exercising its powers of revision.