Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for rival parties and perused the material available on record.
(2.) Brief facts to decide the present controversy are that petitioner Jagdish was tried by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bandikui in following six matters for charges under Section 420, 406 and 120-B IPC and was convicted and sentenced. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bandikui decided respective appeals vide judgment mentioned below:- JUDGEMENT_65_LAWS(RAJ)11_2016_1.html
(3.) During hearing of appeals, an application Under Section 427 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner, but while deciding the appeals no order was passed thereon. Consequently a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. was preferred before this court which was registered as S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.656/2016. Co-ordinate Bench of this court while deciding the revision vide order dated 23.5.2016 directed the learned Appellate Court to dispose of the application u/s 427 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner. Thereupon learned Appellate Court decided vide order dated 4.6.2016 the application under Section 427 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner and rejected the same on the ground that the court can pass the order only u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and it does not have power, relying upon the judgment dated 19.01.2016 of this court passed in D.B.Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1912/2013 Arjun Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. The petitioner has submitted the instant revision against this order of the Appellate Court.;