Subramaniam vs Vijaya, Jayalalitha rep. by mother Vijaya and State

V. Kanagaraj, J.—This petition has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 10.10.2002 made in R.C. No. 4 of 2002 by the Court of

Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivaganga, thereby confirming the order dated 26.11.2001 made in M.C. No. 21 of

1997 by the Curt of Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur.

Today, when the above matter came up for admission before this Court, in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate taking notice on behalf of the third respondent herein, it comes to be known that it is a maintenance petition filed by

respondents 1 and 2, who are the mother and the minor daughter as against the petitioner u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and the Court of Judicial Magistrate,

Tirupathur, in consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on a trial held, has ultimately arrived at granting a sum of Rs.300/= per

month in favour of the second petitioner from the date of the petition, that was on 28.5.1997, as per M.C. No. 21 of 1997 and on revision, the

Court of Additional sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivaganga, has confirmed the said order passed by the Judicial Magistrate,

thereby dismissing the revision filed before him, as a result of which, the petitioner has come forward to file the above petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Today, this Court, testifying the validity of the petitioner having come forward to file this petition, is attracted towards Section 397(3) and

399(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein Section 397(3) recites as follows:

Calling for records to exercise of powers of revision:-

(1) ....

(2) ....

(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by

the same person shall be entertain by the other of them.

Section 399(3) recites,

Sessions Judge''s powers of revision:-

(1) ....

(2) ....

(3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon

in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High

Court or any other Court.

In both the above provisions of law, it has been very clearly envisaged that if an application is made either to the Court of Sessions or to the

High Court, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other Court and that where an application for revision is made

before the Court of Sessions, the decision of the Court of Sessions Judge thereof shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the

instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court. Needless to mention that u/s 482 Cr.P.C., a second revision

cannot be entertained, and therefore, as decided in many cases in the past, it is only proper not to entertain the above petition and to dismiss the

same at the stage of admission itself.

In result, this petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed as such.