D.S.Mathur, J. - (1.) This order governs Criminal Revisions Nos. 1502 to 1505 of 1960 by the Municipal Board of Bijnor against the judgments of Sri Sachidanand, Assistant Sessions Judge, Bijnor whereby Criminal Appeals preferred by Bhim Singh, Baldeo Singh Kishore and Kailash Chandra alias Munnoo were allowed. The Criminal Revisions were presented, before me as Application Judge on 6-9-1960 with office reports dated 31-8-1960. The office did not make a note that the revisions were being presented in Court directly without first of all approaching the Sessions Judge. This fact was also not brought to the notice of the Application Judge, but the facts as detailed in the hearing of the revisions would have indicated that no revision had been made before the Sessions Judge and the applicant was challenging the order of discharge directly before the High Court, It cannot, therefore, be said that the applicant was guilty of, or was in any way responsible for concealment of facts. The fact, however, remains that the order of admission was passed without the Court being informed, in clear words, that no revision had been filed before the Sessions Judge. The applicant cannot, therefore, escape the responsibility (for improper admission of the revisions, but it was mentioned by the learned Advocate that he was under the impression that no revision, lay before the Sessions Judge as his was a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction as far as Criminal Appeals were concerned and consequently the revisions were filed directly before the High Court and it was not brought to the notice of the Application Judge that such a recourse was being adopted.
(2.) An order passed in a Criminal proceeding can be modified or quashed in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr. P. C. This section, clearly provides : "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." The first and the last clauses of Section 561-A, Cri. P. C are not applicable to the facts of these cases. In other words, this Court would be Justified to vacate the orders dated 6-9-1960 and to reject the revisions on the ground that the Sessions Judge had not first been approached only if it is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the applicant was guilty of concealment of material facts or was not acting in good faith when full facts were not detailed in the petition, this court would have been justified to interfere by vacating the orders already passed so that no one may dare to approach this Court with incomplete facts. As already mentioned above the present cannot be said to be cases in which the applicant was guilty of concealment of facts. It is different thing that if it was noticed that the Sessions Judge had not been moved, the revisions may not have been admitted; but it is likely that if the revisions were being summarily dismissed on the above technical ground, the teamed Advocate for the applicant would have argued that no revision lay before the Sessions Judge. This point has been argued before me in detail and consequently it is possible that the revisions may have been admitted so that this question may be decided by this Court for the guidance of the litigants, the members of the Bar and also the subordinate courts. To put it differently, the present are not the cases in which this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cri. P. C. to quash the orders of admission dated 6-9-1960.
(3.) The above view cannot be said to be in disregard of the practice of this Court. In the Full Bench case of Shailabala Devi v. Emperor, AIR 1933 All 678 (FB), the revision was disposed, of on merits after rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the Government Advocate, even though no revision had been filed before the Sessions Judge. Suleman J. observed, after consideration of the case law, that in most of the cases the High Court did not consider the objection fatal after the application had been admitted and record called for, all the more, when the case had been pending for a long period, which in that case was not more than six months. Mukerji J. made observations for the guidance of the members of the Bar and the litigants in general and in that connection suggested that the special grounds for moving the High Court directly should be indicated in the petition or disclosed by the applicant or his counsel at the time of the admission of the revision. King J. observed that it could be presumed that the Judge who admitted the application was aware of the rule of practice but decided that special grounds had been shown for making an exception to the general rule. Even though it was laid down that the well established practice of this Court and also of other High Courts was not to entertain a revision under Section 435, Cri. P. C. unless the, Sessions Judge had, first of all, been approached, yet it was made clear that that was a rule of practice and not the law. As far as the revisional jurisdiction was concerned, both the High Court and the Sessions Judge had concurrent jurisdiction and in exceptional cases the High Court could entertain, a revision application even though the subordinate court had mot first of all been, approached. Revision applications made direct to the High Court were thus entertained as there was no illegality and there was a mere departure from the rule of practice.;