The option available to an aggrieved person to invoke the concurrent revisional jurisdiction of either the High Court or the Sessions Judge under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. is subject to "protective discrimination" through a fair, just, and reasonable procedure.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - REVISIONAL JURISDICTION - CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT AND SESSIONS JUDGE - EXERCISE OF OPTION BY AGGRIEVED PERSON - GUIDELINES - HIERARCHICAL SET UP OF COURTS - DOCTRINE OF SUBORDINATION OF COURTS - NATURE OF RIGHT OF REVISIONIST - NEED FOR REGULATING EXERCISE OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION - FAIR, JUST AND REASONABLE PROCEDURE - RULES FOR EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION - PROTECTIVE DISCRIMINATION.
Fact of the Case:

The High Court of Rajasthan observed that there was a state of great confusion regarding the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and the concurrent jurisdiction of the Sessions Judges under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). This confusion was leading to a large number of revision applications being filed before the High Court, consuming almost all the time of the court and leaving no time for hearing old criminal appeals and other applications. The High Court also noted that in many cases, the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judges was being consistently and persistently bypassed, and that there was a lack of clarity regarding the circumstances in which a person aggrieved by an order of a Magistrate could approach either the High Court or the Sessions Judge for revision.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the option available to an aggrieved person to invoke the concurrent revisional jurisdiction of either the High Court or the Sessions Judge under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. was subject to "protective discrimination" through a fair, just, and reasonable procedure. The High Court further held that, in the hierarchical set up of the courts in the State, it was considered to be a fair, just, and reasonable procedure to require a person aggrieved by a revisable order made by a Magistrate to approach the Sessions Judge concerned first in revision under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. The High Court also held that no revision application under Section 397(3) by the same person could be entertained either by the High Court or the Sessions Judge against the same order of the Magistrate.
Issues: 1. Whether the option available to an aggrieved person to invoke the concurrent revisional jurisdiction of either the High Court or the Sessions Judge under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. was absolute or subject to any limitations or guidelines? 2. Whether, in the hierarchical set up of the courts in the State, it was considered to be a fair, just, and reasonable procedure to require a person aggrieved by a revisable order made by a Magistrate to approach the Sessions Judge concerned first in revision under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C.? 3. Whether a revision application under Section 397(3) by the same person could be entertained either by the High Court or the Sessions Judge against the same order of the Magistrate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The option available to an aggrieved person to invoke the concurrent revisional jurisdiction of either the High Court or the Sessions Judge under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. was subject to "protective discrimination" through a fair, just, and reasonable procedure. 2. In the hierarchical set up of the courts in the State, it was considered to be a fair, just, and reasonable procedure to require a person aggrieved by a revisable order made by a Magistrate to approach the Sessions Judge concerned first in revision under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. 3. No revision application under Section 397(3) by the same person could be entertained either by the High Court or the Sessions Judge against the same order of the Magistrate.
Final Decision: The High Court issued guidelines for the exercise of the concurrent revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and the Sessions Judge under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. These guidelines included requiring a person aggrieved by a revisable order made by a Magistrate to approach the Sessions Judge concerned first in revision, and prohibiting the filing of a revision application under Section 397(3) by the same person against the same order of the Magistrate.

JUDGMENT

1. - In the course of my presiding over the Single Bench (Criminal) of this court for considerably sufficient time it was noticed that Criminal Misc. Petitions Under section 482 and applications Under section 397/401 Cr.RC., instituted as back as in the year 1978-79 and onwards, were pending for hearing and decision by this court. In majority of such petitions and applications the proceedings before the lower courts had either been stayed or the record of the lower courts requisitioned in this court. It was experienced that day in and day out quite a large number of fresh applications Under section 397 or petitions Under section 482 Cr.RC. were listed for admission/orders consuming almost all the time of the court leaving no time for hearing old criminal appeals and other criminal applications and petitioners. It was noticed that almost each and every order passed by a trial court in a criminal case was being challenged before this court either by recourse to Section 397/401 or 482 Cr.P.C. and in majority of cases the revisional jurisdiction of the concerned Sessions Judges Under section 397/399 Cr.RC. was not only being consistently and persistently by-passed but also a state of great confusion regarding the revisional jurisdiction of this court and the concurrent jurisdiction of the Sessions Judges Under section 397 Cr.RC. has been created. More often than not second revision applications were being preferred in the garb of petitions Under section 482 Cr.RC. Instances of simultaneous challenge to the same order, passed by a Magistrates in a case, before this court as well as before the Sessions Courts were also not lacking. It was also noticed that a particular order passed by a Magistrate in a case was challenged by some of the aggrieved persons by preferring separate applications Under section 397/399 Cr.RC. before the concerned Sessions Judge and by others before this court, some preferring applications Under section 397/401 Cr.RC. and some preferring petitions Under section 482 Cr.PC. The State of affairs infact looked like that pointed out at by the Apex Court in the case of In Re Special Courts Bill (1979) 1 SCC 380 at page 442 and restated by the same court in the case of Ganesh Narain Hegde v. S. Bangrappa, (1995 (4) SCC 41) at page 50 .

2. It was, therefore, felt that if the ever-increasing state of confusion regarding the exercise of the concurrent jurisdiction of this court and the court of Sessions Under section 397 Cr.RC. was not taken due note of timely and the concept of concurrent jurisdiction was riot clearly defined and a realistic and practical view of the problem was not taken in the context of the spirit and object behind the amended, modified and improved revisional jurisdiction of this court and the court of Sessions Judge Under section 397 Cr.RC. and the relevant provisions in the Statute are not interpreted, construed, applied and administered, keeping in mind the legislative intent and judicial trend on speedy trials and the geographical and developmental position of this state and the socio-economic and cultural conditions of the people here the entire criminal justice delivery system would break down and the judges in men would soon start to be governed by men in judges and an unconscious escapism from discharging the divine function of dispensation of justice between the oppressor and the oppressed was likely to take over them for their uneasy solace. I, therefore, discussed the problem with not only the Hon'ble Chief Justice and some of my learned colleagues but also with quite a good number of the learned members of the Bar. I must put it on record that the Hon'ble Chief Justice and my learned colleagues and a majority of the learned members of the Bar shared the anxiety of the court to decide the old criminal cases and to deal with the new ones in accordance with the rights of the parties to approach this court and the court of Sessions Judges for timely redressal of their grievance

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(Raj) 1319

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTM.A.A.Khan, J.M/s. Dutch Opthaimic Research Centre International B.V. - AppellantVersusUltramad Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - RespondentS.B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 256 of 1996.Decided On : 22-08-1997

The option available to an aggrieved person to invoke the concurrent revisional jurisdiction of either the High Court or the Sessions Judge under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. is subject to "protective discrimination" through a fair, just, and reasonable procedure.

Cases Referred (15)

Login now and unlock premium legal research

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.A.A.Khan, J.
M/s. Dutch Opthaimic Research Centre International B.V. - Appellant
Versus
Ultramad Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 256 of 1996.
Decided On : 22-08-1997