Somu Pillai vs Krishna Pillai

Devadoss, J.—This is an application to revise the order of the Sessions judge of South Arcot in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 19 of

1923. The complainant, Somu Pillai, brought a case of theft of bulls against the accused in the Court of the Second Class Magistrate of

Chidambaram Taluq. The Sub-Magistrate convicted the accused and directed the bulls to be handed over to the complainant. The accused

appealed to the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Chidambaram who acquitted the accused and declined to interfere with the order of the Sub-

Magistrate regarding the bulls. Against this order of the Deputy Magistrate an appeal was preferred to the Sessions Judge of South Arcot Division,

who set aside the order of the Divisional Magistrate and directed the bulls to be handed over to the accused. It is urged before me that the

Sessions Judge had no power u/s 520 to vary the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. Section 520 is in these terms:--""Any Court of appeal,

confirmation, reference or revision may direct any order u/s 517, Section 518 or Section 519, passed by a Court subordinate thereto, to be stayed

pending consideration by the former Court, and may modify, alter or annul such order and make any further orders that may be just."" The Court of

Sessions of South Arcot is not a Court of Appeal so far as the order of the Second Class Magistrate is concerned. Appeals from the decisions of

Second Class Magistrate lie to the District Magistrate and to Sub-divisional Magistrate who are empowered to hear appeals from Second Class

Magistrate. So the Sessions Court is not a Court of Appeal so far as the Stationary Magistrate is concerned. It cannot be said to be a Court of

Appeal in respect of the order by the Sub-divisional Magistrate. The Sub-divisional Magistrate heard the appeal from the decision of the Second

Class Magistrate, and no second appeal lay to the Court of Sessions against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. The Sessions Court is not

a Court of confirmation in cases of this kind. It was feebly urged by Mr. Ethiraj that the Sessions Court may be called a Court of reference. I think,

a Court of reference means a Court to which references are made and which on references are entitled to go into the matters and dispose of them.

The High Court is a Court of reference in jury cases where the Judge differs from the jury. The Sessions Court is not a Court ot revision so far as

the judgment of the Second Class Magistrate are concerned and the Sessions Court has norevisional powers over the orders of a Divisional First

Class Magistrate in appeal eases. Section 520 has therefore no application to the Sessions Court in cases like this. This point came up for decision

in Criminal Case No. 236 of 1904 before a Bench of this Court. In that case the Second Class Magistrate convicted the accused and directed the

property to be taken possession of by the Forest Officer. This order was made u/s 44 of the Madras Forest Act. On appeal the First Class

Magistrate reversed the order of the Second Class Magistrate and acquitted the accused u/s 47 of the Madras Forest Act and made the order

which the Sessions Judge took upon himself to revise. The learned Judges held that the Sessions Court was not a Court of appeal, etc., in those

circumstances from the First Class Magistrate, and had no jurisdiction to revise the order. 1 hold that the order of the Sessions Judge is not

authorised by Section 520 or any other section of the Criminal. Procedure Code. I set aside the order of the Sessions Judge and direct that the

order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Chidambaram be given effect to.