( 1 ) IS petition is filed by the complainant, challenging the order dated 4-9-1999, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Crl. R. P. No. 260 of 1999, reversing the order dated 26-7-1999 passed by the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in CC no. 5295 of 1998 on LA. II filed by the accused-respondent.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner has presented a complaint in PCR No. 1031 of 1998 under Section 200 of the Cr. P. C. against the respondent and others, for punishing them for the offences punishable under Section 500 of the ipc. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused published certain articles in a Kannada Weekly, "lankesh Patrike" in three issues, making certain imputations against the petitioner who was the then Director of P. U. Education Department of State of Karnataka. On 25-11-1998, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance; recorded the sworn statements and ordered for registration of the case in CC No. 5595 of 1998 and issued process. On receipt of the same, the accused appeared before the Court and was released on bail. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Section 259 of the Cr. P. C. requesting the Court to convert the case i. e. , "summons Case" into "warrant case", which prayer was opposed by the present petitioner-complainant. On considering the rival contentions, by the order dated 26-7-1999, the learned Magistrate rejected the said application. However, in the revision filed by the respondent, the learned sessions Judge reversed the same and directed the Magistrate to proceed with further trial, following the procedure for Warrant Case. Hence the present revision petition.

( 3 ) SRI S. K. Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order of the learned sessions Judge is contrary to law and procedure prescribed; that the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order mechanically, without taking into consideration the scope and jurisdiction of the magistrate under Section 259 of the Cr. P. C. The learned Counsel contended that the words, "in the course of trial of Summons Case", and "rehear", used under Section 259 of the Cr. P. C. show that the Magistrate cannot permit the conversion at initial stage, but only can consider the same after the trial has commenced. As such, when the case on hand had not reached to the stage, the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting the prayer. But the learned Sessions Judge committed an error of the law in reversing the same and ordering for conversion and trial, from adopting the procedure of Warrant Case instead of Summons Case. On the other hand, Sri C. H. Hanumantharaya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, supporting the findings of the learned Sessions judge, inter alia contended that the present revision petition itself is not maintainable one, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vasudeva Rao v Smt. Shailaja and Others. Elaborating the same, he contended that second revision under Section 397 of the Cr. P. C. was not maintainable, since there was already exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the learned Sessions Judge. On merits also, he contended that as in summons cases, accused has no Right of Audience, unlike warrant cases, by introduction of Section 259 in a given case like the one on hand, the magistrate in the interest of justice could permit or order for conversion of Summons Case into Warrant Case and as such, there is no illegality committed by the Sessions Court and as such, the petition is liable to be rejected.

( 4 ) IN sofar as the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court, the law is well-settled. It is held by various pronouncements that the exercise of revision jurisdiction by the High Courts are wide enough for examining the correctness, legality or propriety of any orders passed by the subordinate Court and if the Hi