M. B. Farooqi, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by an order dated 9-9-1975 of Asst. Sessions Judge, Nainital, discharging the accused in Sessions Trial No. 170 of 1970 the applicant filed a revision petition observing that the court of an Asstt. Sessions Judge is not an inferior court in so far as sections 397 and 398 are concerned. By means of this applica tion under section 482 Criminal Proce dure Code the applicant has challenged the validity of the order dated 9-9-1975 of the Asst. Sessions Judge as also that of the Sessions Judge dated 7-5-1976 and prayed that the same be quashed and the learned Asst. Sessions Judge be directed to frame a charge against the accused.
(2.) THE principal question that arises for consideration is whether the Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to entertain a revision under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code against an order of the Asst. Sessions Judge passed in exercise of the original juris diction. An ideal question arose before this court in the case of Municipal Board, Bijnor v. Bhim Singh (1), under section 435 of the old Code, which is part materia with section 397 of the new Code. It was held that an Asst. Sessions Judge is subordinate to the Sessions Judge (vide section 17 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code) and subse quently for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction the court of Asst. Sessions Judge is an inferior court and the Sessions Judge can entertain revision against the order of the Asst. Sessions Judge even where the order was passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Like section 17 (3) of the old Code, section 10 (1) of the new Code provides that all the Asst. Sessions Judge shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge in whose jurisdiction they exercise juris diction. In view of the aforesaid decision, it is clear that for purposes of section 397 the Asst. Sessions Judge is an inferior criminal court and there fore the orders passed by him are revisable by the Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the Sessions Judge was not legally justified in holding that the applicant was not competent to maintain revision against the order dated 9-9-1975 of the Asst. Sessions Judge. THE revision must go back to him for disposal on merits. In that view, it will not be necessary for me to go into the validity of the order of Asst. Sessions Judge at this stage. In the result, I allow this petition and quash the order of the Sessions Judge, Nainital and direct that he will dispose of the applicant's revision in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Sessions Judge on March 6. 1978. Application allowed.;