1980 (5) TMI 120 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether an applicant must approach the Court of Session before moving the High Court for revision.
2. Whether there is a requirement to approach the Sessions Judge before seeking anticipatory bail from the High Court.

Revision:
The High Court and the Court of Session have concurrent revisional jurisdiction as per the Cr. P. C., 1973. While the old Code allowed applicants to approach either court directly, some High Courts imposed a rule to apply to the Sessions Judge first. However, the new Code restricts moving to the High Court if the Sessions Judge has already been approached. The Sessions Judge's powers under the old Code were limited, and the new Code prohibits invoking revisional jurisdiction of more than one court. Various High Courts have held that the choice of forum lies with the party, and the rule requiring application to the Sessions Judge first is no longer valid.

Anticipatory Bail:
Section 438 of the new Code allows for anticipatory bail without the requirement to approach the Sessions Judge first. A Division Bench held that a person can directly apply to the High Court for anticipatory bail, and rejection by the Sessions Judge does not bar approaching the High Court. Another judgment suggested approaching the Court of Session first, but the Full Bench disagreed, stating that there is no legal basis for such a restriction. The Full Bench concluded that applicants can directly apply to the High Court for revision or anticipatory bail without involving the Sessions Judge first.

The matters are to be decided by a single Judge based on the Full Bench's answers to the questions posed.