Back
2002 Supreme(Bom) 168
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
D.G. Deshpande, J.
Cerena D’Souza .... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Criminal Revision Application No. 5 of 2002, decided on 14-2-2002.
Advocates appeared :
H.H. Ponda with A.H.H. Ponda, for petitioner.
R.M. Agarwal i/b I.A. Bagaria, for respondent Nos. 2 4.
R.M. Agarwal with I.A. Bagaria i/b Uma I. Bagaria, for respondent No. 3.
V.R. Patil, for respondent Nos. 6, 7 8.
Adhik Shirodkar with Rajendra Shirodkar, for respondent No. 5.
P. Janardhanan, A.A.G. with B.R. Patil, P.P., for State.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the aggrieved party to approach the inferior court first unless exceptional grounds for approaching the superior court are established.
Headnote:
Revision - Concurrent Jurisdiction - Sections 397 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code - [1998(5) Bom.C.R. (P.B.)546, 1996 Cri.L.J. 172, 1975 U.C.R. (Bom.)402, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 381, 1991(1) Bom.C.R. 324] - The court discussed the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Court in entertaining revisions, emphasizing the need for the aggrieved party to approach the inferior court first unless exceptional grounds for approaching the superior court are established. The court upheld the preliminary objection and directed the revision to be sent to the Sessions Court for decision.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the preliminary objection raised regarding the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Court in entertaining revisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the preliminary objection on the ground of propriety and absence of special circumstances, directing the revision to be sent to the Sessions Court for decision.
Issues: The primary issue was the propriety of entertaining the revision in the High Court without approaching the Sessions Court first, given the concurrent jurisdiction of both courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the aggrieved party to approach the inferior court first unless exceptional grounds for approaching the superior court are established.
Final Decision: The court directed the revision to be sent to the Sessions Court for decision within eight weeks.
2. As against this it was contended by Mr. Ponda that when concurrent jurisdiction is conferred upon the High Court and the Sessions Court it was for the litigant to make choice of the Forum and there could not be any legal bar upon a person if he moves the High Court directly without going to the Sessions Court. He contended that if revision before the Sessions Court is dismissed then the party cannot come to the High Court because second revision is barred. He therefore contended that in such an eventuality the petitioner who have moved this Court in revision jurisdiction will be without any remedy. Mr. Ponda relied upon the judgment reported in 1975 U.C.R. (Bom.)402 (Madhavlal Narayanlal Pittle v. Chandrashekhar Chaturvedi and others)3, and A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 381 (Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and another)4.
3. As against this, Mr. Shirodkar who was supporting Mr. Agarwal contended that if the revision is dismissed by the Sessions Court, it is not that they have no remedy but they can come to the High Court under sections 397 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Judgment delivered by Justice Lodha is earlier as it is reported in 1996 Cri.L.J. 172 and the same is forwarded by Justice Patil in 1999 Cri.L.J. 122. Justice Lodha held in para 4 of the aforesaid judgment :
“It is undoubtedly true that section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code confers jurisdiction of revision concurrently on the Court of Sessions as well as the High Court, but it is equally true that where the jurisdiction is conferred on two courts, the aggrieved party should ordinarily first approach the inferior of the two courts unless exceptional grounds for taking the matter directly before the superior Court is made out.”
Justice Lodha has further observed that :
“This Court does not encourage filing of revision application under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directly before this Court if it could be challenged in revision before the Sessions Court having jurisdiction of revision over the matter.”
This judgment was forwarded by Justice Patil who also took the similar view and held that even though the revision filed in the High Court in that case was maintainable and not barred by any provisions of section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code however, maintainability of the proceedings is one thing while its entertainment is another. Justice Patil observed :
“When the proceeding is maintainable by different courts, one being inferior or subordinate to the other, then it is certainly a question of propriety, particularly for the superior Court whether it should entertain such a proceeding which could have been filed in the lower Court. It is material to note that revision is not a statutory right of a litigant but it is a matter or discretion of the Court having revisional jurisdiction.”
5. Relying therefore upon the aforesaid two judgments, Mr. Agarwal contended that even though the Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revision, this revision should not be entertained on the question of propriety and because no special case is made out. Mr. Agarwal contended that Justice Patil has while following the judgment of Justice Lodha has considered all the relevant cases on this point and therefore since two Single Judges of this Court have taken particular view th
