- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This revision is being finally disposed of.
(2.) THE facts of the case are very simple. Under the provisions of the Sarai's Act, 1867 (Act No. 22 of 1867), a licence has been granted by the District Magistrate, Varanasi in favour of the revisionist to operate the Sarai. Some people of the Mohalla took objections to that, including the respondents. They moved an applica tion before the learned District Magistrate, Varanasi alleging that the provisions of the Act are not being complied with. In fact, the licence should not be granted to the revisionist. Notice was issued to the revisionist by the District Magistrate in pursuance to the objections raised by the neighbours. Against the order of issuing notice, a revision was filed before the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge Varanasi, being Criminal Revision No. 471 of 95, Vimal Kumar Kapoor v. State of U. P. & Anr. . It was brought to the nature of the learned Ses sions Judge that if the Sarai is allowed to operate, that will cause immense nuisance to the local inhabitants, because there is no parking place near the said building and occasionally public functions may disturb the peace of the locality. It has been further contended that there are schools, temples etc. near the said building and other places of public importance and that these public functions may disturb normal working as well if the petitioner is allowed to operate the Sarai. In absence of any arrangement for parking of the vehicles near the building, in question, which itself is situated in a densely populated residential area, the interest of the public shall be immensely hampered.
(3.) BEFORE the learned IInd Addl. Ses sions Judge, originally it was urged that he had no jurisdiction. But later on, this objec tion was given up as is apparent from the order of the learned Ilnd Addl. Sessions Judge at page 3, which is as follows: "no other point has been discussed before me. " Therefore, this plea that the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge has no jurisdic tion to entertain the revision, cannot be entertained at this stage. Not only this, under Section 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sub-clause (4) (b), it has been provided that a Magistrate who does the duty of an ad ministrative or executive nature, such as, the granting of a licence, the suspension or cancellation of a licence, sanctioning a prosecution or withdrawing from a prosecu tion shall be known as Executive Magistrate. Under Section 397 of the Cr. P. C. , there is a clear provision that all the Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 399. There fore, it is immensely clear now that after passing of the present Code of Criminal Procedure, which is operative since 1. 4. 74, every Executive Magistrate, while discharg ing the functions of an Executive Magistrate in the matter of grant of a licence etc. , is a inferior court to that of the Sessions Court. Therefore, any order passed by the Executive Magistrate is revisable before the learned Sessions Judge of the District. Hence I reject the learned counsel's argu ment that the Sessions Judge has no juris diction to entertain the revision against the order of the District Magistrate.;