Kulwant Singh Tiwana, J. - (1.) TWO complaints were filed against the Petitioner of Criminal Revision No 122 of 1978 (Arjan Dass v. The Market Committee, Hissar), and Criminal Revision No. 124 of 1978 (Arjan Dass v. The Market Committee, Hissar) by the Respondent, under Section 31(sic) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar. Both the revision petitions will be disposed of by this judgment as they involve the same question of law,
(2.) IT is admitted by both the parties that the offence for which the complaints made against the aforesaid Petitioner were triable as a summons case, because the offence carries a maximum sentence of Rs 200/. It has been hold by both the Subordinate Courts below that the procedure adopted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the trial of cases was that of a summons case. On an objection by the Petitioner, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not find it a fit case, on reasons recorded by him in hit order dated June 4, 1976, to put the substance of accusation as required by Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) the Petitioner. He, therefore, discharged the Petitioner. The Market Committee, Hissar, filed revisions against the orders of discharge before the learned Sessions Judge, Hissar. The Learned Sessions Judge found that the order of discharge were wrong in law as they were passed in summons cases, and for that reason, revisions before him were not competent. Utilising the provisions of Section 401(5) of the Code, which empowers the High Court to be recorded, for reasons to treat a revision as an appeal, the learned Sessions judge converted (those revisions into appeal and heard the cases. He accepted the appeals and setting aside the orders of discharge by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate remanded the cases before him for trial
(3.) THESE revisions have been filed by the Petitioner against the orders of the learned Sessions Judge.;