A second revision to the High Court is maintainable at the instance of a party who is unsuccessful before the Sessions Judge, or who is aggrieved by his order.

WAIKAR. J. :- In these two Criminal Revisions Applications (Criminal Revisions Applications Nos. 120 of 1978 and 158 of 1977) which were pending before the learned single Judge (Tulpule J.) one for admission and the other for final hearing respectively, a common question of law raised before him was one of interpretation of the provisions of Section 397(3) of the Criminal P.C. 1973 (hereafter called the Code).

2. Against the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the present opponents non-applicants in these two revision applications had filed Criminal Revision Applications in the Court of Sessions Judge, Akola. The learned Sessions Judge allowed their revisions and feeling aggrieved by the said orders of the learned Sessions Judge, the present applicants (i. e. the unsuccessful parties before the Sessions Judge) filed these two revisions in this Court.

3. According to the learned single Judge, a second revision to the High Court, even at the instance of the unsuccessful opponents before the Sessions Court would not be tenable. The applications could be treated or converted as applications under Section 482 of the Code, which, in his opinion, could be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court.

4. There could be no doubt that if the Criminal Revisions under Section 397 of the Code are legally untenable, or barred, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code could be invoked.

5. The question for consideration. which the learned Single Judge referred to us for decision is whether no revision application is maintainable in this Court, once a Criminal Revision Application in respect of the proceedings is filed in the Court of Session, irrespective of the fact, who had moved the Court of Session in revision.

6. According to the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Madhavlal Pittia v. Chandrashekhar (1976 Mah LJ 167) : (1976 Cri LJ 1604) and the other single Judge decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Sarjoo v. Babadin (1975 Cri LJ 1562) seem to support his view that the revision to this Court in untenable against an order passed by the Court of Session in a revision even at the instance of the unsuccessful or aggrieved party as in the instant case. With respect we find that these two rulings do not seem to support such a view.

7. 'In Madhavalal's case (cit. supra) in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code, the question for consideration was whether a person aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate can file a criminal revision directly in the High Court without approaching the Sessions Judge. Under the old Criminal P.C. 1898, if the revision application filed by a party before the Sessions Judge was rejected, then that party had a further opportunity of revision before the High Court and the High Court could give, if it was found necessary, a relief to that party concerned. A Rule of practice or a statement of policy of the High Court, however, was that the aggrieved person before coming directly to the High Court should first approach the Sessions Court. Rule 14 of Chapter XXVI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 was in these terms :

"14. In the absence of special circumstances, the High Court will not entertain an application for revision where an application for revision might have, but has not, been made to a lower revisional Court".

In the above case it was held that under the new Code a further opportunity of revision before the High Court is now taken away.

8. In this context in Madhavlal's case (1976 Cri LJ 1604) (Bom) (cit supra) it was observed thus : (At p. 1608 of Cri LJ).

"Once the revision application filed by a party before the Sessions Judge is rejected then under the new Code by virtue of provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 399, that order becomes final and that party whose revision has been rejected by the Sessions Judge cannot further move the High Court for the revision of the said order though the oppone