- (1.) BY this common order, the core controversy involved in all these revision petitions with regard to the scope and ambit of Section 397, Cr. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code), which confers concurrent powers to the High Court as well as to the Sessions Courts with regard to calling the record and to examine proceedings of the inferior Courts as to its correctness, legality or propriety, is being resolved. In the present revision petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the various orders of the Courts of Judicial Magistrates/addl. Chief Judicial magistrates and Chief Judicial Magistrates of the State and without approaching the court of Sessions for no reason, they have preferred revision petition directly to the high Court. Whether High Court should encourage such practice so as to put some check to warrant propriety, whereby, the orders of elders are respected in hierarchy, being the essential theme of common law based on customary rules and practice.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the different petitioners on the basis of the pronouncements of the various citations that when there is a concurrent jurisdiction, the option is left with the party to choose the forum which he wishes. It is also contended that when the petitioners have first chosen the remedy of filing revision petitions before the Sessions Court, they cannot file second revision in the High Court by virtue of bar contained in Section 397 (3)of the Code and as by the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High courts when the remedy is exhausted by way of revision petition before Sessions Court under Section 397 of the Code, the High court cannot exercise inherent powers under section 482, Cr. P. C. Therefore, to avoid multiplicity of filing revision petition in the sessions Court and then by way of petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. it is neither desirable nor permissible to first approach the Sessions Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners second revision was permissible to the High Court only as per the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the Old Code ).
(3.) BEFORE discussing various citations referred, it will be relevant to refer the provisions contained in Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code, which reads as under : "397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.- (1) The High Court or any sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.- All Magistrates, whether executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the high Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. " "482. Saving of inherent power of High court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. ";