- (1.) N. S. Gupta, J. Heard Sri S. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and A. G. A. for State.
(2.) BY means of this petition under Section 482, Cr PC the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10-3-98, passed by District Judge, Gorakhpur whereby the revision preferred by the peti tioner Akbar Ali was dismissed. The im pugned order passed by the learned Dis trict Judge reads as follows:- "10-3-98 : Called out repeatedly. None appears for the revisionsl Akbar Ali. I myself perused the impugned order whereby the accused have been acquitted, after appre ciation of evidence on merit. There appeas to be no material illegality or irregularity for which any interference may be called for with the order impugned, The applicant Akbar Ali does not appear to have any legal right to file this revision. Hence the revision is dismised in limine. " The main grievance of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the peti tioner had a right to prefer revision before the Court of Sessions because the provi-sions of Section 397 (3), Cr PC lays down that if an application under this section is moved by any person either to the High Court or to the Court of Sessions no fur ther application by the same person shall be entertained by cither of them. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner Akbar Ali was the in jured of the case, the, therefore, had a le gal right to prefer the revision. Thus, the observation, of the court below that peti tioner was having no legal right for filing revision was uncalled for. Although the impugned order passed by learned Ses sions Judge shows that he had passed the said order after perusing the order of the learned Magistrate, yet it appears that the record of the case was never called for and was never examined by the learned Ses sions Judge and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge failed to properly comply with the provisions of Section 397, Cr PC since the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge right at the stage of admission and that too without perusal of the record and, further holding therein that the petitioner Akbar Ali was not having legal right to file this revision was un called for. I direct that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge be quashed. It is directed that the learned Sessions Judge shal call for the record of the case and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties and after pe rusing the record of the case shall pass proper orders into the case according to law.
(3.) WITH these observations the petition is finally disposed of. Petition disposed of. .;