Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Om Prakash-VII, J.
Bhagwan Swaroop —Applicant
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. —Respondents
Cr. Misc. Application No.4670 of 2003
Decided on 21.11.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant:Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Govt. Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT:
Court of Sessions has similar power as of High Court in revision and as High Court is authorised to take additional evidence in revision, therefore, the Sessions Court has also jurisdiction to take additional evidence.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 397 and 401 — Court of Sessions has similar power as of High Court in revision — As High Court is authorised to take additional evidence in revision, Sessions Court has also jurisdiction to take additional evidence — Petitioner was directed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate to not to interfere in peaceful possession of first party in disputed property — Petitioner filed revision before Sessions Court and during pendency of revision moved application for taking some additional evidence in revision — Order dismissing application as not maintainable was wrong and liable to be set aside.
Held: This Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Versus Mohrawai, 1990 Cr LJ 2068 (LB) has held that Court of Sessions has similar power as of High Court in revision and as High Court is authorised to take additional evidence in revision, therefore, the Sessions Court has also jurisdiction to take additional evidence.
Since powers conferred to the Sessions Judge are analogous to the powers of the High Court and there is provision under Sections 391 and 401 Cr.P.C. that additional evidence in criminal revision may be taken, therefore, after analysing the impugned order with the facts of the present case and also the case law cited here-in-above, this Court without going to this fact that applicant has not availed any other forum, this Court finds it to be a fit case for exercise of its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Since impugned order is in clear violation of the legal provision and if it sustained, there would be a miscarriage of justice.
In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to take additional evidence in revision. (Paras 10 to 12)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Om Prakash-VII, J.—The present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by one Bhagwan Swaroop challenging the order dated 13.5.2003 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Agra in criminal revision no.377 of 1999 (Purushottam Vs. State and Others) whereby the Court below has declined to take additional evidence in criminal revision proceeding.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
3. The proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bah, Agra with the direction that the second party shall not interfere in the peaceful possession of the first party in disputed property no.1478, 1479, 1480 and 1481. Copy of the order was also sent to the S.O. concerned for necessary action. The second party, feeling aggrieved with the order, filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Agra, being criminal revision no.377 of 1999 (Purushottam Vs. State and Others). During pendency of the revision, the opposite party moved an application with a prayer to take some additional evidence in the criminal revision. Objection was filed by the revisionist. The lower revisional court vide order dated 13.5.2003 rejected the application observing that revisional Court has to see only the legality / illegality of the impugned order on the basis of records available in the lower Court, but not on the basis of evidence adduced during criminal revision. Feeling aggrieved with that order, present Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.
4. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is clear provision that revisional Court can take evidence during pendency of the revision. Lower revisional Court has illegally rejected the application of the applicant. It was also submitted that the present case is with regard to the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., which is a quasi-judicial civil proceeding. Hence, referring the provision of the Cr.P.C., prayer has been made to allow the application. It has further been argued that present forum is the appropriate forum.
6. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and hence no occasion arises to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Court.
7. Before discussing the question raised by the applicant that criminal revisional Court has jurisdiction to take the additional evidence in the revisional proceeding or not, I would like to quote the provisions of Sections 399, 401, 391 Cr.P.C.
“399. Sessions Judge’s powers of revision. (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub- section (1) of section 401.
(2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-section (1), the provisions of sub- sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub- sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge.
(3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of an person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by Way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court.”
8. This section deals with the power of the Sessions Judge in revision and clearly provides that power of Sessions Court in revision may be the same as High Court and the Sessions Court can exercise the same powers as the High Court while disposing of the revision.
9. Section 401 (1) Cr.P.C. defines the revisional powers of High Court and it runs as under :-
“401. High Court’s Powers of revisions.
(1) In the case of a
