Asha Arora, J. - (1.) By the instant application the petitioners have assailed the order dated 7th May, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Purulia in Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2009 affirming the order dated 5th November, 2008 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Purulia in Misc. Case No. 159 of 1974 arising out of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") at the instance of the opposite parties 1 to 3 herein. The operative part of the order passed in Misc. Case No. 159 of 1974 is quoted herein below : - "From the documentary evidences and oral evidences adduced by the parties I find and hold that the first party members are in possession of the property involved in the proceeding and the possession of the 1st party over the disputed property is hereby declared and their possession should not be disturbed unless evicted in due course by law."
(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioners herein challenged the same by a revisional application being Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2009 in the Sessions Court. After contested hearing the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the aforesaid revisional application. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as follows : - "I have gone through the judgement passed by the learned SubDivisional Executive Magistrate, Purulia and I find that it has fully discussed the evidence of the parties and has come to a clear finding that the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are in possession of the property involved in the proceeding and their possession was declared by the ld. Court below. In fact the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate is legal and justified and it does not call for interference by this Court. In the circumstances, I find no merit in the revisional application and it should be dismissed at once."
(3.) Castigating the present revisional application on the ground of its maintainability in view of sub-section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that it is not an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as there is no whisper therein that there has been grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of Court which would warrant exercise of inherent power of this Court.;