9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Judge, a second revision to the High Court, even at the instance of the unsuccessful opponents before the Sessions Court would not be tenable. The applications could be treated or converted as applications under Section 482 of the Code, which, in his opinion, could be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court. 4. There could be no doubt that if the Criminal Revisions under Section 397 of the Code are legally untenable, or barred, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code could be invoked. 5. The question for consideration. which the learned Single Judge referred to us for decision is whether no revision application is maintainable in this Court, once a Criminal Revision Application in respect of the proceedings is filed in the Court of Session, irrespective of the fact, who had moved the Court of Session in revision. 6. According to the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Madhavlal Pittia v. Chandrashekhar and the other single Judge decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Sarjoo v. Babadin seem to support his view that the revision to this Court is untenable against an order passed by the Court of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sacrosanct and cannot be touched by the High Court even under Section 482 of the Code. It was observed that Section 399(1) confers revisional jurisdiction on the High Court and upon the Sessions Judge so that either of them has the power to call for and examine the records of any proceedings before any inferior criminal Court and pointing out the change in the new Criminal P.C. with the old Code, it was observed in a general way that the right to file two revisions initially before the Sessions Judge and thereafter before the High Court has been taken away under the new Code. The inherent powers of the High Court, it was finally observed are, however, not circumscribed by anything in the new Code. The question whether the revision to the High Court at the instance of the aggrieved or unsuccessful party before the Sessions Court in a revision is barred or not was never considered in this ruling. We find that the language of Section 397 of the Code is itself clear and peremptory and it leaves no scope for an interpretation that the bar of further revision to the High Court is a blanket and a total bar. The wordings of this section are : 397(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9(1) of the Code. Sub-section (3) of Section 399 provides that the order of the Sessions Judge would be final for the party who moves him. Thus the finality attaches only in relation to the person who or on whose behalf the Sessions Judge is moved. In other words, the decision of the Sessions Judge in a revision cannot be final for the person aggrieved by it. To put it succinctly, the concurrent finding of the Sessions Judge and the Courts below becomes final, while in cases where the Sessions Judge reverses the order of the Court below in revision, the defeated party is not barred to move the High Court under Section 399(3) of the Code. 13. In a Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in re Puritipati Jagga Reddy 1979 Cri LJ 112 it was held that the party which is unsuccessful in revision before the Sessions Judge is precluded from filing such a revision in the High Court by virtue of Section 397(3) of the Code. However, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers where that exercise is warranted. 14. In Ramchandra Puja Panda v. Jambeswar precisely the same question as is raised in this reference had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of Orissa High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at the instance of X is maintainable. This is for the simple reason that the second criminal revision before the High Court is not at the instance of such person who filed the criminal revision before the Sessions Judge. On the language of Section 397(3) and Section 399(3) conclusion is irresistible that a second revision at the instance of a successful party before the Magistrate who lost the revision before the Sessions Judge lies . 16. In the opinion of the learned single Judge reading of the provisions of Sections 397(1) and 397(3) and Section 402 of the Code show that the revisional powers cannot be exercised once over. What is observed in this connection in the referring order is as under :- If that could be done, then similarly under Section 402 the High Court could have kept the proceedings before it pending or alive until the disposal of the application before the Court of Session filed by any of the parties. The Legislature in providing under Section 402 of the Criminal Procedure Code, transfer to itself by the High Court such proceedings or transfer to the Court of Session such proceedings pending before it seems to provide a single exercise of revisional jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e words by or on behalf of any person and in relation to such person appearing in sub-clause (3) of Section 399 must be given their proper meaning and construction. In interpreting a Statute redundancy or superfluity of the words is not normally contemplated or presumed. A plain reading and construction of these two provisions shows that the Legislature intended that an aggrieved person choosing the forum before the Sessions Judge shall be bound by his verdict which shall be final so far he is concerned and he shall be precluded from filing another revision before the High Court and by necessary implication it further means that so far as unsuccessful or aggrieved person by the order the Sessions Judge is concerned, the decision is not conclusive or final for him and a remedy of a revision to the High Court is not barred. If the Legislature really intended to make no distinction between an unsuccessful or successful party before the Sessions Judge in revision and intended that there shall be no further or second revision in any event irrespective of who moved the Sessions Judge and who wins and who loses before the Sessions Judge, the Legislature could have enacted that if an appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
