Kashipur Sahkari Ganna Vikas Va Bikri Samiti Ltd. vs Udey Raj Singh and Another

M.B. Farooqi, J.—Aggrieved by an order dated 9-9-1975 of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nainital, discharging the accused in Sessions Trial No. 170 of 1974, the applicant Sled a revision before the Sessions Judge, Nainital. By bit order dated 7-5-1976, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition observing, that the court of an Assistant Sessions Judge is not an inferior criminal court in so far as Sections 397 and 398 are concerned. By means of this application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant has challenged the validity of the order dated 9-9-1975 of the Assistant Sessions Judge as also that of the Sessions Judge dated 7-5-1976 and prayed that the same be quashed and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge be directed to frame a charge against the accused.

The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to entertain a revision u/s 397 Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of the Assistant Sessions Judge passed in exercise of the original jurisdiction. An identical question arose before this Court in the case of Municipal Board Bijnor v. Bhim Singh 1962 AWR 199 u/s 435 of the old Code, which is in pari materia with Section 397 of the new code. It was held that an Assistant Sessions Judge is subordinate to the Sessions Judge (vide Section 17(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and consequently for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the court of Assistant Sessions Judge is an inferior court and the Sessions Judge can entertain revision against the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge even where the order was passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Like Section 17(3) of the old Code, Section 10(1) of the new Code provides that all the Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judges in whose jurisdiction they exercise jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid decision, it is clear that for purposes of Section 397 the Assistant Sessions Judge is an inferior criminal court and the orders passed by him are revisable by the Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the Sessions Judge was not legally justified in holding that the applicant was not competent to maintain a revision in his court against the order dated 9-9-1975 of the Assistant Sessions Judge. The revision must go back to him for disposal on merits, in that view, it will not be necessary for me to go into the validity of the order of Assistant Sessions Judge at this stage.

In the result, I allow this petition and quash the order of the Sessions Judge, Nainital, and direct that he will dispose of the applicant''s revision petition expeditiously in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Sessions Judge on March 6, 1978.