In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, a party should ordinarily apply to the inferior court first before approaching the High Court.

1. This petition is directed against the order dated May 28, 1971 passed by the Magistrate 1st Class, Nahan, granting bail to the respondents Nos. 1 to 32 and a subsequent order dated June 3, 1971 by the same Magistrate reviewing the case and granting bail afresh to the said respondents.

2. The petition purports to have been made under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also under Article 227 of the Constitution.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 32 has raised an objection that this revision application should not be entertained as the petitioner should apply in the first instance to the learned Sessions Judge.

4. It appears that on April 27, 1971, the respondents Nos. 1 to 32 were arrested for different offences upon a complaint filed by the petitioner. On May 28, 1971, an application for bail was made before the Magistrate and bail was granted. But before the respondents were actually released, the petitioner pointed out that one of the offences for which the respondents had been arrested was an offence under S.307. I.P.C which was non-bailable. The Magistrate considered the matter and held that the case properly fell under Section 325, I.P.C. and not under Section 307, I.P.C. Accordingly, he made an order on June 3, 1971 granting bail afresh to the respondents.

5. Now, while the bail application was pending before the Magistrate, a jail application was also moved before the earned Sessions Judge, Simla. It is alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge was not informed that a similar bail application was already pending before the Magistrate, for was the Magistrate informed that a bail application had been made before the learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel or the respondents, however, states that he bail application was moved before the earned Sessions Judge on May 31, 1971 and in view of the granting of bail by the Magistrate on June 3, 1971, the application was rejected as not maintainable by the learned Sessions Judge on June 11, 1971.

6. It seems to me that, in, the circumstances, the petitioner should apply to the learned Sessions Judge in the first instance. That course will be in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Gulam Ali v. The State, 1972 Him LR 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to S. Narayanan v. Kannamma Bhargavi, AIR 1969 Ker 126 (FB) where a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has observed that there is no legal bar to a party approaching the High Court without first moving the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate. Reference was made to the practice prevailing in that High Court. There is no doubt that a party is entitled to apply to the High Court even as he is entitled to do so before the learned Sessions Judge. But whenever concurrent jurisdiction is vested by the statute simultaneously in two courts, one superior to the other. I consider it appropriate that the party should apply to the inferior court first. There are a number of reasons persuading me to that conclusion. Firstly, if a party is required to go to the inferior court in the first instance, the superior court has the advantage of the opinion of the inferior court when the occasion arises for the exercise by it of its jurisdiction in the matter. Secondly, the inferior court is generally situated in the same, or very near the place where the authority is situate from whose order the revision application is made, and it is more convenient and saves time for the record to be sent from that authority to the inferior court when the revision application is filed, and upon disposal of the revision application for the record to be returned to the authority for disposal of the case. Thirdly, it provides against the superior court being flooded with cases which can be more appropriately disposed of by the inferior court. These are reasons which have generally prevailed with the High Courts in holding that where