B.R. Himalvi vs Joginder Lal Sood

R.S. Thakur, J.—This petition has been directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, dated June 20, 1978, whereby the revision filed by the revisionist in this Court was dismissed. The facts appear to be that the revisionist filed a private complaint against the Respondent in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, under Sections 278 and 431 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after recording the preliminary evidence found that a prima facie case was made out against the Respondent u/s 431 of the I.P.C. only and thereafter he transferred the proceedings to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shimla, for further trial of the case. The Judicial Magistrate thereafter vide his order dated December 1, 1976, held that no case against the Respondent was made out even under the provisions of Section 431 of the I.P.C. and the Respondent was discharged. The revisionist thereafter went in revision against this order to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, who passed the impugned order.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has raised a preliminary objection that this being a second revision in this High Court, the same was not competent and on this short ground it deserves dismissal in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure He also cited certain rulings in support of this contention.

I have considered this contention carefully but find that the same is not sustainable on the facts and in the circum stances of the present case. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is cryptic and completely non-speaking which is as follows:

I have gone through the judgment of the lower court. There appears to be no cogent ground to interfere with the same in revision.

This petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-, T.R. HANDA, 20-6-1978 Sessions Judge, Shimla Div

Obviously this order cannot be said to be a legal one. The provisions of Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly lay down that the powers of the Sessions Judge in revision of this type are co-extensive with the powers of the High Court u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in terms lays down that the High Court while exercising the powers of revision under this Code is competent to exercise any of the powers conferred upon the Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391. The underlying idea behind these provisions of law is that in a case of this nature, while the revisional Court is exercising its jurisdiction in revision, it has to pass a well reasoned order as would be passed by it while the Court is disposing of a criminal appeal. In the instant case, obviously the lower Court has failed in its duty to pass a speaking order and as such, in my opinion, the interference of this Court is called for under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution. The preliminary objection in this case cannot be sustained as this would tantamount to holding by this Court that the Sessions Judge in a criminal revision before it, can in an arbitrary manner dispose of the same without going into the facts or law connected with the case by passing a non-speaking order.

I would, therefore, allow this petition and remand the case to the learned Sessions Judge with the directions that he will dispose of this revision petition by passing a speaking order in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Sessions Judge, Shimla, on April 24, 1986.