The High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions Court to entertain revision petitions under Section 435 of the CrPC, but it is a salutary practice for the High Court to not entertain revisions directly from orders of subordinate Magistrates unless the aggrieved party in the first instance moved the Sessions Court or the District Magistrates Court.

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 file a revision either in the Sessions Court or in the High Court as he thinks fit.

The learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the practice of the Madras High Court for over a quarter of a century has been to entertain such a revision without insisting upon the condition that the petitioners should have in the first instance moved the Sessions Court, and that the said practice should be recognised and followed in the Andhra High Court.

She would further add that, even if such a practice was not recognised in this Court, revisions once admitted should not be dismissed on the preliminary point as, by the time the revision came to be disposed of, a long time might elapse, circumstances might change and the petitioner might not be in a position to go to the Sessions Judge thereafter. Before considering the case law on the subject, it would be convenient to read the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Section 435 :

"The High Court or any Sessions Judge or District Magistrate or any Sub-divisional Magistrate empowered by the State Government in this behalf, may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within the local limits of its or his jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence be suspended and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.

Explanation :- All Magistrates, whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of S. 437.

Section 436 : On examining any record under S. 435 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the District Magistrate by himself "or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make and the District Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under S. 203 or Sub-S. (3) of S. 204 or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged.

Section 437 : When on examining the record of any case under S. 435 or otherwise, the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate considers that such case is triable exclusively by the Court of Session and that an accused person has been improperly discharged by the inferior Court, the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate may cause him to be arrested and may thereupon instead of directing a fresh inquiry order him to be committed for trial upon the matter of which he