The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court of Session has revisional jurisdiction in relation to the appellate judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge and the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

BHAT, J.

Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1074 of 1980 has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2515 of 1977 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Trichur, which has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1979 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur and in Criminal Magistrate, Trichur and in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 1979 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Trichur. Crl.M.P. No. 1088 of 1980 has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 850 of 1977 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Trichur, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1979 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Trichur and in Criminal Revision No. 28 of 1979 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Trichur.

2. The petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 1074 of 1980 has been convicted under Sections 55(a) and 55(b) and Section 58 of the Abkari Act 1 of 1077 for illicit distillation of arrack in his house, which was detected by the patrol party consisting of P.Ws. 3, 4 and others. He was sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months more under Section 55(b) of the Act. No separate sentences were awarded for offences under Sections 55(a) and 58 of the Abkari Act.

3. The petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 1088 of 1980 was convicted under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act 1 of 1077 for being in possession of illicit wash fit for distillation and illicit distillation apparatus and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months more. The offence was detected by a patrol party consisting of P.W. 3 and others.

4. Against his conviction and sentence by the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, No. 1. Trichur, the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 1074 of 1980 filed an appeal before the Court of Session, Trichur. The appeal was received on file by the Sessions Judge, who also ordered suspension of the sentence. Thereafter the appeal was made over to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur and it was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1979. Against the decision in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1979 the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 40 of 1979 before the Court of Session, Trichur. The revision was admitted and made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Trichur, who heard it had disposed it of.

5. Against his conviction and sentence the accused in C.C. No. 850 of 1977 filed an appeal before the Court of Session, Trichur. The Sessions Judge received the appeal on file, passed an order suspending the sentence and made over the appeal to the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Trichur, who renumbered the appeal as Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1979, heard the same and disposed it of. Against that decision the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 1088 of 1980 filed a revision before the Sessions Court, Trichur as Criminal Revision No. 28 of 1979. The Sessions Judge admitted the revision and made it over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Trichur, who heard it and disposed it of.

6. The two Crl.M.Ps. were heard by one of us at an earlier stage. The jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge. Trichur to admit the revisions and to dispose them of was challenged on the ground that the Sessions Judge has no powers of revision over the appeals disposed of by Assistant Sessions Judge or the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Public Prosecutor inter alia contended then that the petitioners having submitted themselves to the revisional jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Trichur cannot turn round and question the jurisdiction. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the decision of a single Judge of this Court in Ouseph v. State of Kerala (1980 Cri LJ 1214). The learned counsel for the petitioners doubted the correctness of that decision and hence the two petitions were referred to a Division Bench.

7. The learned cou