The main legal point established is that the Additional Sessions Judge has the authority to call for additional evidence in revisional proceedings, similar to the powers of the Sessions Judge.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the State-respondent and perused the record.

2. By instituting the instant application, a prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 18.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Moradabad in Criminal Revision No.94 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.1378 of 2017, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Moradabad, which is pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that, one of the owner of the property Smt. Ram Kali Devi sold out her half of the portion from the land in question to the three persons namely, Vineet Kishore Jain, Sitaram and Shiv Autar Agarwal vide registered sale deed dated 15.03.1990 and out of sale consideration amounting Rs.1,50,000/-Rs.20,000/-was paid at the time of execution of sale deed and remaining amount of Rs.1,30,000/-was agreed to be paid and later on the same was also paid. After receiving the entire sale consideration, Smt. Ram Kali Devi challenged the said sale deed by way of filing a Original Suit No.348 of 1991. Thereafter, written statement was filed on 13.08.1991. The suit was decreed on 13.03.2015, in favour of vendor. Further, another petition was filed by the applicants under Article 227 bearing No.5000 of 2018, which was dismissed by this Court on 18th July, 2018. The vendee, Vineet Kishore Jain filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 13.03.2015 and the aforesaid application was allowed and the ex parte judgment was recalled vide order dated 09.01.2022. He submits that an FIR was lodged on 30.11.2017 by one Sunita Singhal, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC against the present applicants as the applicants claimed their right in property in question on the basis of "Hibanama". The matter was investigated by the police and charge sheet was filed and thereafter cognizance was taken by the court below. The applicant filed an application under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. which was dismissed vide order dated 2.11.2020 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and fixed the date on 18.11.2020 for framing of charges.

4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 2.11.2020, the applicants filed, Revision No.94 of 2020 on 11.11.2020 in which a prayer was made by the present applicants that there are certain additional documents and evidence, which may be permitted to file and the same may be taken on record for the proper adjudication of the matter. The aforesaid revision was rejected vide order dated 18.06.2022, by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Moradabad wherein the following findings have been recorded, which are read as under:-

^^mijksDr izko/kkuks ls Li"V gksrk gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dks nŒizŒlaŒ /kkjk 401 dh mi/kkjk&1 es iznRr 'kfDr dk iz;ksx ls'ku U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 399¼1½ nŒizŒlaŒ ds vUrxZr rHkh fd;k tk ldrk gS tc vfHkys[k ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k us Lo;a eaxok;k gksA^^

5. The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants are that, the Additional Sessions Judge can exercise all the powers of Session Judge, given in Chapter XXX of the Cr.P.C. in respect with any case transferred to him by general or special order of the Sessions Judge.

6. He added that under the provision of Section 400 of Cr.P.C., it has specifically been mentioned that an Additional Sessions Judge shall have and may exercise all the powers of a Sessions Judge under this Chapter in respect of any case which may be transferred to him by or under any general or special order of the Sessions Judge. He next submits that under the mandate of the aforesaid provision, the Additional Sessions Judge while hearing the matter in a revision exercised all the powers of Session Judge which is envisaged under Chapter XXX of Cr.P.C. which are referred to him by an special or general order of the Sessions Judge. In support of his contention he has referred