In Re: Laxman Rangu Rangari

N.G. Chandavarkar, J.—The District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with this matter after there had been an appeal in the Sessions Court, and after that Court had confirmed the conviction and sentence. The terms of Section 520 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, do not give any jurisdiction to the District Magistrate under the circumstances of this case. The Court of Revision such as that of the District Magistrate can only interfere where there was no appeal to the Sessions Court. Here there was an appeal to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court did exercise its jurisdiction. And, further, even if the District Magistrate had jurisdiction, he ought not to have disposed of the matter without giving notice to the petitioner. The District Magistrate was clearly wrong in upsetting the order of the trying Magistrate merely on the representation of the opponent. Therefore, the rule must be made absolute by setting aside the order of the District Magistrate and restoring that of the trying Magistrate.

Heaton, J.

I concur in the order proposed. This is a case which, it seems to me, is governed by Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section, to my mind, is perfectly clear and its meaning is this; that where the case is one in which an appeal lies, any party aggrieved by an order as to the disposal of the property must go to the Court of Appeal. Where the case is one where confirmation is required, he must go to the Court of confirmation, where it is neither the one nor the other he may go to the Court of reference or revision. Here the case is one in which in appeal lay, and, therefore, it seems to me that the only Court which could deal with the order regarding the disposal of the property u/s 520 is the Court of Appeal; in this case the Court of Session. Therefore, the order made by District Magistrate was made without jurisdiction.