An Assistant Police Prosecuting Officer, not being categorized as a 'Police Officer,' is competent to conduct prosecutions under CrPC Section 25.

1. This Criminal Revision case comes before us on a reference made by our learned brother Muktadar, J. The question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent No. 1, who was appointed as Asstt. Police Prosecuting Officer and was then conducting C. C. No. 437/78 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is competent to conduct the prosecution. It is the contention of the petitioners that the 1st respondent is the Assistant Police Prosecuting Officer who was appointed by the Inspector - General of Police in the year 1956 and is a 'Police Officer.' Having regard to S. 25 of the CrPC, 1973 (Act II of 1974), only the State Government is competent to appoint an Assistant Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecutions in the Courts of Magistrates. However, the State Government, except as provided in sub-clause (3) of S. 25 cannot appoint a Police Officer as an Assistant Public Prosecutor. The petitioner's objection that the 1st respondent cannot conduct the prosecution was upheld by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 29-9-1978. On a revision by the 1st respondent, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, by his order dated 26-12-1978 reversed the order of the Magistrate and held that the Assistant Police Prosecuting Officers are not appointed under the Police Act, but are appointed under the Hyderabad General Services and Andhra Pradesh General Subordinate Service Rules. They are not "Police Officers." He further held that S. 25, CrPC does not speak of administrative control, but only of the appointing authority. Mr. Veerabhadrarao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the 1st respondent, who is under the administrative control of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Inspector - General of Police, is a Police Officer. He further contends that he has not been appointed by the State Government and as such, he is not an Assistant Public Prosecutor as envisaged by S. 25 of the CrPC and is not competent to conduct the prosecution against the petitioners in the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection that having regard to S. 397, CrPC this second revision petition after the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate is not maintainable. No doubt, if once an application for revision under S. 397 (1) is filed before a Sessions Judge, no further application for revision is maintainable in the High Court. But this prohibition is not in general terms. It merely prohibits the person who has already filed this revision petition before the Sessions Judge, from invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court once again. The prohibition operates only against the person who has invoked the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, and does not preclude a second revision petition to the High Court by any other person. The wording of sub-s. (3) of S. 397, CrPC makes this position abundantly clear. That apart, neither S.397 not any other provision of the CrPC takes away the inherent power of the High Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction suo motu. In the instant case, against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate in their favour, the present petitioners had not filed any revision petition. It was the 1st respondent that had invoked the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge. That revision petition having been allowed, the accused have moved the High Court by way of a revision petition. In as much as only the person who has once moved the Sessions Court by way of revision is prohibited from filing a second revision petition in the High Court, the prelimina