MOHAMMED BASHIR Vs. K C ITTY
LAWS(KER)-1963-9-3
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on September 11,1963

MOHAMMED BASHIR Appellant
VERSUS
K.C. ITTY Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

RAMAN PILLAY VS. DAKSHAYANI [LAWS(KER)-1975-9-30] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the District Magistrate of Quilon discharging the accused under S.253(1) Crl. P. C. The revision has already been admitted and it has now come up before me for disposal.
(2.)The petitioner had filed a complaint of defamation under S.501 IPC. against the respondents. After recording the prosecution evidence the learned Magistrate discharged the accused holding that no prima facie case has been made out. Revision against an order of discharge is provided under S.436 Cr. P. C., and the learned Sessions Judge of Quilon is competent to entertain a revision and order further enquiry. It is the settled practice of almost every High Court in India that where concurrent revisional jurisdiction is conferred on courts of different grades, the aggrieved party should approach the inferior among such courts and not approach the High Court directly. This is the view taken by this court in the decision in Das Issac v. Narayanan ( 1958 KLT 1110 ) and I am in respectful agreement with this view.
(3.)It is represented that having admitted the petition great injustice would be caused if it were to be dismissed on this preliminary ground. As pointed out by Subba Rao, C. J. (as he then was) in Ramayya v. Venkata (AIR 1956 Andhra 97), the mere fact that a revision has been admitted by the High Court cannot make any difference in the enforcement of the rule of practice, for the party, who with open eyes ignored the practice and filed a revision direct to the High Court, cannot take advantage of his deviation from the rule of practice. This rule of practice should not be deviated from, except on special, exceptional or extraordinary grounds. There are no such exceptional circumstances in this case. Even on the merits there is no case for interference, because as stated by the learned Magistrate the publication is more or less a substantial reproduction of the complaint filed before the police against Pw. 1. Interests of justice therefore do not require interference, especially when the petitioner has other remedies to pursue if so advised.
The revision petition is dismissed.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.