( 1 ) SHYAM Lal opposite party filed a complaint under Section 379. P. C. , against the applicants faqir Ahmad etc. It was dismissed by the trial court which discharged the applicants. Shyam Lal applied to the Additional District Magistrate for revision of the order of discharge and the additional District Magistrate allowing the application set aside the order of discharge and directed further inquiry. The applicants moved the Sessions Judge to revise the order of the additional District Magistrate on the ground that it was improper and the learned Sessions Judge has made this reference for its being set aside. His jurisdiction to entertain the applicants revision implication was challenged as barred by Section 435 (4) Cr. P. C. , he took the view that the provision only forbade his entertaining another application against the order of the trial court but did not forbid his entertaining an application against the revision order of the Additional district Magistrate. He relied upon Sheeraj v. Emperor, 1947 All LJ 260: (AIR 1948 All 46 ).

( 2 ) UNDER Section 435 (1) the high Court or any Sessions Judge or District Magistrate may call for and examine the record of any proceeding "before any interior criminal court"; the explanation makes it clear that "all Magistrates, wether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge. " Subsection (4) lays down that "if an application under this section has been made either to the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate, no further application shall be entertained by the other of them. " The Sessions Judge and the District magistrate have been empowered by Sections 436 and 437 to order further inquiry into any complaint that has been dismissed under Section 203 or Section 204 (3) or into the case of any person who has been discharged and to order commitment of any person who has been improperly discharged. In cases not covered by Sections 436 and 437, they can only report for orders of the High Court the result of the examination of the record summoned under Section 435 and only the High Court has jurisdiction of passing orders. An additional District Magistrate has the powers of the District Magistrate. The Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate have thus concurrent revisional jurisdiction, though it does not follow that only one of them can be approached. In certain matters (viz. those mentioned in Sections 436 and 437) the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions judge and the Dstrict Magistrate, but is not prevented by this fact from exercising it in the event of the failure or refusal of the Sessions judge or the District Magistrate to exercise it. If the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under section 436 or 437 on the failure or refusal of the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate to exercise it, there js no reason for saying that the Sessions Judge cannot exercise the jurisdiction on the failure of the District Magistrate to exercise it. But for Sub-section (4), the Sessions Judge would have had jurisdiction to entertain a revision application on the failure or refusal of the district Magistrate to entertain one. When the District Magistrate entertains an application under section 435 he can dismiss it and refuse to interfere with the inferior courts order or order further inquiry or commitment under Section 436 or 437 or report the result of the examination to the High Court under Section 438; whichever order he passes is in itself an order of a criminal court liable to be revised, but it can be revised only by a superior court. The High Court js unquestionably a superior court and can revise it, but the Sessions Judge is not and cannot revise it. The District Magistrate is inferior to him but only when exercising original or appellate jurisdiction; he is not inferior when exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 435. When the District Magistral convicts or acquits an accused in a c