The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a revision application directly from the order of a Magistrate.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 397 - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT TO ENTERTAIN REVISION APPLICATION - REVISION APPLICATION AGAINST ORDER OF MAGISTRATE - HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN REVISION APPLICATION DIRECTLY FROM ORDER OF MAGISTRATE - HIGH COURT'S JURISDICTION NOT BARRED BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 397 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner filed an application under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, complaining of dispossession from two rooms. After an inquiry, an order was passed declaring the respondent to be in possession of the rooms. Petitioner filed a revision application in the High Court challenging the order.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain a revision application directly from the order of a Magistrate. The Court observed that sections 397, 399, and 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, confer co-ordinate powers on the High Court and the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court. The Court further held that a party is not precluded from invoking the powers of either the High Court or the Sessions Judge, but cannot avail of both remedies once a course is chosen.
Issues: Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a revision application against the order of a Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a revision application against the order of a Magistrate is not barred by the provisions of section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Both the High Court and the Sessions Judge have co-ordinate powers to call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court. A party can invoke the powers of either the High Court or the Sessions Judge, but cannot avail of both remedies once a course is chosen.
Final Decision: The High Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the revision application filed by the petitioner. The case was sent to a Single Judge for disposal on merits.

JUDGMENT - PADHYE, J.:---This revision application has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay in Case No. 304/N of 1973 arising out of proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

2. At this stage we are not concerned with the merits of the case. The revision application came up for admission before Malvankar, J., on 8-7-1974 and he issued a rule and interim stay of the order dated 20-6-1974. When the revision application came up for final hearing before Bhole, J., he passed the following order :---

"Mr. R. Jethmalani with S.B. Jaisinghani mentioned. Referred to D. B."

It is not clear in this order as to for what purpose the matter was referred to the Division Bench. But in view of the said order the revision application has been placed before us. We are told by Counsel that a question was raised before Bhole, J. as to whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the revision application and that is why reference was made by Bhole, J. to a larger Bench. Since the matter is before us, we consider this question which has been posed before us.

3. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner, who has filed the revision application that this Court has jurisdiction and can entertain the revision application. The learned Counsel for the respondents does not seriously dispute the position that the High Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the revision application against the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, however, contends that the revision application could only be entertained by the Sessions Judge and the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision application. We shall consider the rival contentions raised by the Counsel.

4. We shall, however, state only the necessary facts to understand the point involved in the case : The petitioner filed an application under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 on 14-8-1973 in the Court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate (as he then was) 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay complaining of having been dispossessed on 7th August, 1973 of two rooms in 303, Shivlal Motilal Mansion situate at Bellasis Road, Bombay 8.

5. After an enquiry into this application, an order was passed on 20-6-1974 declaring the respondent No. 1 to be in possession of the two rooms in dispute and that he was entitled to retain such possession until evicted in due course of law. It is this order which is sought to be challenged by the present petition.

6. It may be noted that during the pendency of the inquiry before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and before the final order was passed, the Criminal Procedure Code was amended and the new Criminal Procedure Code as amended came into force with effect from 1-4-1974.

7. It has been contended that since the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had commenced when the old Code of Criminal Procedure was in force, all the rights of the parties will be governed by the provisions of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. In effect it was urged that the petitioner had a right of revision against the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under the old Code and he could file a revision application in the High Court. On the other hand, it is the contention of the other side that there is no vested right of a revision as in the case of an appeal and, therefore, the revision against the order passed on 20-6-1974 which was after the date the new Code came into force could not be filed under the old Code but had to be filed, if it could be, under the provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. This question need not detain us for long because the Supreme Court in (Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal)1, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 144 has clearly laid down that the revision application is not a right vested in t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document