Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) The petitioners in all these revisions have assailed the orders of the learned Special Magistrate, Economic Offences, Jaipur. These matter relate to the cognizance of offences under the Companies Act. In similar circumstances, this Court treated S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No. 872/1995 as revisions under Section 397 Cr.RC. and forwarded it for disposal to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District. Under section 397 Cr.PC. though this court as well as the Court of learned Sessions Judge can dispose of revision petitions but I am of the view that the orders of the learned Special Magistrate, Economic Offences, Jaipur ought to have in the first instance been assailed under section 397 Cr.PC. before the learned Sessions, Jaipur District.
(2.) In Sukh Lal v. The State, (RLW 1955 page 465) , it was propounded that: "Where the revisional powers of a High Court are invoked, it will as a rule not exercise such jurisdiction unless the party concerned has applied to the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, in the first instance, and such court has had the opportunity to consider the case and record its opinion thereon. If the Sessions Judge comes to a conclusion in favour of the petitioner, the matter is very mush simplified at the time it comes before this Court. Should he. however, come to a contrary conclusion, it would be still open to the aggrieved party to apply to this Court to consider the application and the opinion of the Session Judge would be before it."
(3.) In the facts and circumstances of the cases without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the cases I forward all these revisions for disposal to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District. The record of the case be sent forthwith to the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District. The parties are directed to appear before the said Court on 20.7.1998.;