- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Heard Sri A. K. Shar-ma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D. B. Jaiswal and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THIS revision under Section 397/401, Cr. P. C. has been filed against the order dated 22-12-97 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur in criminal case No. 750 of 1997 by which he summoned the applicant to stand trial for offence under Section 406/506, I. P. C. A preliminary objection was raised by Sri D. V Jaiswal that against that order the applicant had filed petition No. 843 of 1998 under Section 482, Cr. P. C. which has been dismissed on 11-3-98. It is contended that against the same order the revision is not maintainable. As against this the con tention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the application under Sec tion 482, Cr. P. C. was rejected on the ground that the revision is maintainable against the order. I have perused the order. No doubt in the order dated 11-3-98 of this Court there is observation that the revision is maintainable against the order, but the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. was not rejected on that ground. It was con sidered on merits and it was held that the cause of action arose at Kanpur, therefore, the Kanpur Court has jurisdiction to try the matter. As such the Kanpur Court did not commit any error in law in entertaining the case and issuing the summons against the applicant.
(3.) THE contention in this revision again is that the Court at Kanpur has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, as the complaint itself says that the entire cause of action arose at Etawah. This point has already been decided in the application under Section 482, Cr. EG, therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed accord ingly. Revision dismissed. .;