M.Wahajuddin, J. - (1.) THE applicants have come forward with a prayer that the entire proceedings in Criminal Case no. 721/49 of 1978, State v. Sagar and others as well as the final order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chakia, district Varanasi, dated 26-6-1980 and of the revisional court dated 22-9-80 and 30-10-80 be all quashed.
(2.) IT would appear that direction for removal of obstruction was given by the Magistrate recording findings against the applicants. The applicants against such final order of the Magistrate preferred a revision registered as Criminal Revision No. 178 of 1980 in the sessions court, The Sessions Judge, Varanasi, vide its on dated 22-9-80 observed that inspite of information neither the revisionist, nor a one representing him is present. He thereafter observed that the revision dismissed in default of the appearance of the revisionist. Thereafter an application was made that the revision may be restored. That application was rightly reject as under the Criminal Procedure Code there is no power to review any order to set aside any final order disposing of the case, i, e. the revision in the prese case. It is, however, urged that the revision could not have been dismissed default of appearance. That is the first and preliminary point that has been urge I have considered the matter. Once the revision was admitted and registered, became the duty of the revisional court to scrutinise the record and give a finding on merits on perusal of the record. It is noteworthy that the powers to entertain and hear the revision have been conferred upon the Sessions Judge by Section CrPC and as provided therein the court is called upon to satisfy itself regarding legality or propriety of any finding or order and as to the regularity of any proceeding before any inferior court. The order in question was not an interlocutory order It was final order against which revision lay. The Sessions Judge for the competence of the provisions contained in Section 397, CrPC should have examined to records and should have satisfied himself on the aforesaid points as mentioned Section 397 CrPC. It is not that he summarily rejected the revision. The revision was admitted and registered. It is noteworthy that under Section 399 (1) CrPC the Sessions Judge h been empowered to exercise the same powers as can be exercised by the High Court under Section 401 CrPC. Under the latter section the High Court is empowered exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal. Under sections 386, 3 to 391 CrPC the powers are very wide and vast. Section 386 CrPC provides under clauses (d) and (e) that the order of the inferior court can be altered, reversed amended or consequential and incidental order can be passed. When that is t position, it is manifest that a criminal revision once admitted cannot be reject in default, but has to be decided on merits irrespective of the matter of preset and absence of the revisionist. In the case of Mina Ram v. Jivlu Budhu, 19 CrLJ 718 and S. N. Sharma v. State, 1971 CrLJ 1056 similar view has been take by Himachal Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh High Courts. Once I hold that the revision has to be decided on merits, naturally other matters are not to be gone into.
(3.) IN the result, the application is allowed to the exent that the order date 22-9-80 of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi (Annexure III), dismissing to revision in default is set aside and it is directed that the criminal revision No. 178 1980 be disposed of on merits after giving notice of the date to the part involved. Application allowed.;