1980 (4) TMI 325 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973.
2. Maintainability of a second revision application to the High Court after a revision has been filed in the Sessions Court.
3. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973:
The primary issue was whether a second revision application is maintainable in the High Court once a revision application has been filed in the Sessions Court. The judgment clarified that Section 397(3) of the CrPC bars a second revision application by the same person to the High Court if a revision has already been filed in the Sessions Court. The court emphasized that the language of Section 397(3) is clear and leaves no room for interpretation that would allow a second revision by the same party.

2. Maintainability of a Second Revision Application to the High Court:
The judgment examined previous rulings, including Madhavlal Pittia v. Chandrashekhar and Sarjoo v. Babadin, and concluded that these rulings do not support the view that a second revision to the High Court is entirely untenable. The court noted that Section 399(3) of the CrPC provides that the decision of the Sessions Judge is final for the party who moved him, but it does not bar a revision to the High Court at the instance of the aggrieved or unsuccessful party. The court held that the concurrent finding of the Sessions Judge and the lower courts becomes final, but if the Sessions Judge reverses the lower court's order, the defeated party can move the High Court.

3. Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC:
The judgment acknowledged that if criminal revisions under Section 397 of the CrPC are legally untenable, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC could be invoked. The court referred to the decision in Sarjoo's case, where it was held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 are not barred by Sections 397(3) and 399(3) of the CrPC. The court reiterated that the inherent powers are not circumscribed by anything in the new Code.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that a revision to the High Court is tenable at the instance of a party who is unsuccessful before the Sessions Judge or who is aggrieved by his order. The judgment held that the criminal applications filed by parties aggrieved by the Sessions Judge's decisions are competent and do not need to be converted into applications under Section 482 of the CrPC. The revisions were allowed, and the criminal revisions were directed to be dealt with and disposed of by the learned single Judge according to law.

Revisions Allowed.