AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawad Rahim, J.—This petition is filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. questioning the order of the Sessions Judge by which the Revision Petition filed u/s 397 of Cr.P.C. by the respondent has been allowed and the order in favour of the petitioners has been set aside. -The learned counsel for petitioners submits that petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed in view of the bar created by explanation to Section 397 of Cr.P.C. that when a revision is preferred to the High Court or a Court of Sessions, second revision is not maintainable. This view urged by the learned counsel is incorrect.
Section 397 of Cr.P.C. reads thus:-
Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.-
(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation.- All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
From the extracted portion, it is clear that no second revision is maintainable either in the High Court or Sessions Court by the same person. Since, the petitioners herein were not the revision petitioners before the District Judge, revision u/s 397 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable in this Court as petitioners will have the benefit of Section 401 of Cr.P.C. Hence, petitioners'' counsel is permitted to convert this petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. into one u/s 397 of Cr.P.C.
For statistical purpose, this petition shall be treated as having been disposed of.