The Additional Sessions Judge had the jurisdiction to cancel the bail granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to grant bail to the revisionist in the first place.

This revision application is directed against the order dated 5-9-1992 of learned Vlth Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat whereby the Cancelled the bail of the revisionist and directed that he shall be taken into custody.

2. The revisionist was one of the accused facing trial under Sections 302/307,1. P. C. of P. S. Gajner, in District Kanpur Dehat. He was gran ted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat by order dated 11-12-1990.

3. The revisionist, according to the prosecution story, had opened fire upon deceased Ram Narain as a result of which he had died. It is also said that the revisionist had opened fire upon Udai Narain as a result of which he bad received fire-arm injuries.

4. The learned Vlth Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application of the State for cancellation of the bail granted to revisionist Amrish Kumar alias Pappoo on the ground that the learned Chief Judicial Mggistrate had got no jurisdiction to grant the bail in respect of an offence punishable under Section 302,1. P. C. and his (C J. Ms) order was wholly illegal. Otherwise also it has been said that it was riot a St case for release of the revisionist on bail.

5. The revisionist felt aggrieved by the impugned order and, therefore, preferred this revision application.

6. This court heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned A. G. A.

7. It was vehemently argued fot the revisionist applicant that the learned Vlth Addl. Sessions Judge had got no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order which, according to him, could be passed only by the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C. The contention, however, did not appear to carry force.

8. Learned A. O. A. submitted that the application by the prosecution for cancellation of the bail of the revisionist was moved under Section 439 (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 197, which empowered the learned Addl. Sessions Judge before whom the trial was pending to cancel the bail of the revisionist and the revision application, therefore, was liable to be dismissed. He also contended that it was not at all necessary for the prosecution to move the High Court for cancellation of bail by exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C.

9. After carefully considering these submissions and Section 439 (2) aforesaid, I find that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had got the jurisdiction to cancel the bail of the revisionist on the grounds that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate bad got no jurisdiction to grant bail to him. Section 439 (2) aforesaid gave the jurisdiction to the Sessions Judge which included Addl. Sessions Judge to cancel the bail without specifying the grounds upon which the order of cancellation may be passed. There was no force behind the argument that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge could cancel the bail only if the accused had tried to win over the witnesses or had threatened them with dire consequences if they preferred to depose against him during the trial but not on the ground that the bail order itself was without jurisdiction. Different grounds upon which the learned Addl. Session Judge could cancel the bail have been specified in Section 439 (2) aforesaid and this Court there fore could not read the same as a part of Section 439 (2 ). The only provision for cancellation of bail was Section 439 (2) aforesaid and in presence of the same, it was not at all necessary for the prosecution to move the High Court for cancellation of

the bail by exercising its inherent power. The impugned order thus was rightly passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

10. It was also contended for the revisionist that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was competent to grant bail to him and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had wrongly concluded that it could not be granted by him. The contention, however, appears to be devoid of merits. He could grant bail to the revisionist only if there was reasonable ground to