SUBBA RAO, C.J. :- These two Criminal Revision Petitions have been referred to a Bench by Chandra Reddi,, J. on the ground that the matters concerned practice and it was desirable that an authoritative opinion should be expressed on the point.

2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bandar passed similar orders under S. 145, Criminal P.C. in Misc. Cases Nos. 24 and 25 of 1954 declaring that the respondent in each, of the cases was in possession of the schedule land and was entitled to retain such possession until ousted in due course of law. The petitioners, who were respondents before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, filed the aforesaid two revision petitions under S. 435, Criminal P.C., against the said orders.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents raised the preliminary objection that revision petitions under S. 435, Criminal P.C. should not be entertained in the High Court unless the petitioners moved the Sessions Court in the first instance. The learned counsel for the petitioners and also the Public Prosecutor argued that under S. 435 Criminal P.C., the High Court and the Sessions Judge have concurrent jurisdiction and that it is at the option of the aggrieved party to fi