J. B. MEHTA, P. D. DESAI, J.

( 1 ) THE question which arises in this revision application is whether in the context of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the New Code) an aggrieved person who invokes the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court directly without approaching the Sessions Court in the first instance could be refused relief on the ground that unless special cirumstances are made out his revision application cannot be entertained because he had failed to move the Sessions Court. Having regard to the importance of the question the matter has been referred to a Division Bench. We do not however propose to decide the entire case on merits. We shall only deal with and decide the question set out above and pass appropriate orders with regard to the disposal of the case on merits in accordance with the view which we ultimately take. Under the circumstances it is not necessary to set out the facts giving rise to the revision application

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the proper dimension of the point at issue it would be necessary first to make reference to the relevant statutory provisions. Chapter XXVI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960 which bears the title Criminal Business provides in Rule 14 as under: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. THIS rule was enacted when the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (here- inafter referred to as the Old Code) was in force. Under the Old Code the scheme for the exercise of revisional powers in general terms was as follows. Under sec. 435 the High Court and Sessions Judge had conccurrent power to call for and examine the records or proceedings before any inferior criminal Court situate within the local limits of its or his jurisdiction and satisfy 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 proceeding of such inferior Court. The further course to be adopted by the concerned revisional authority was indicated in secs. 436 to 439. If it was found that any complaint had been wrongly dismissed under sec. 203 or sub-sec. (3) of sec. 204 or any person accused of an offence had been wrongly discharged then a further inquiry into the case could be ordered by the revisional authority (see sec. 436 ). If it was found that an accused person should have been committed for trial to the Sessions Court but had been improperly discharged by an inferior Court the revisional authority could order a committal to be made (see sec. 437 ). In all other cases where the illegality or impropriety was of some other kind the Sessions Judge if he was the revisional authority could only report the case for the orders of the High Court (see sec. 438 ). The High Courts powers of revision were very wide. In a case the record of which was called for by itself or which had been reported for orders or which otherwise came to its knowledge the High Court had all the powers of a Court of appeal and it could also enhance the sentence. The only restriction on its revisional powers was that it could not change an acquittal into a conviction although of course it could order a retrial (see sec. 439 ). The scheme of revisional powers under the foregoing provisions of the Old Code reveals that though concurrent revisional jurisdiction was conferred upon the High Court and Sessions Judge except in regard to the cases referred to in sec. 436 and sec. 437 a Sessions Judge had no final power of revision which rested in all cases with the High Court. All other cases which were not covered by those two sections could only be reported for orders to the High Court with recommendations. It is in the context of this scheme of revisional powers that Rule 14 which has been set out earlier was enacted in the exe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document