1. This revision petition has gained access to this court under Section 397, Cr.P.C. by which petitioners who are arraigned as accused in C.C.22101/07 seek an order of discharge.

2. When the matter is taken up for admission, preliminary objection is raised by the respondent-State that the revision before this court is not maintainable as the order impugned is passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) relating to prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34, I.P.C. Any order passed by such court is amenable to revision under Section 397, Cr.P.C., before the court of session/District Judge.

3. Consequent to such preliminary objection raised by the State, I have allowed learned counsel on both sides to address arguments for and against.

4. Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the High Court and sessions court enjoy concurrent jurisdiction under Section 397, Cr.P.C. and therefore, petitioners have the option to choose either of the courts. Technically they cannot be non-suited only on the ground that the sessions court has revisional power.

5. On behalf of the State, it is urged, concurrent jurisdiction conferred by the statute does not give right to a party to by-pass the court to which appeal or revision would lie, to approach the court in hierarchy. It is contended, if it is allowed, we will be opening the floodgates to approach the High Court, by-passing the sessions court, and if that is done, it will against the Forum provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. I have bestowed attention to the grounds urged by learned counsel on both sides in support of their respective contentions.

7. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the power under Section 397, Cr.P.C. cannot be read in isolation but with the provision of Section 401, Cr.P.C. The said provisions are extracted hereunder:

“397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision-(1) The High Court or any sessions Judge may call for an examine the record of any proceeding before any Inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local 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 or order 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 Executive or Judicial, and 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 section 398.

(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

(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 entertained by the other of them.

401. High Court’s powers of revision – (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.

(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice, of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into o