JUDGMENT :

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. The present cases pertain to the filing of the revision petitions by the petitioners against the Order(s) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate(s). The plea taken by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since there is concurrent jurisdiction provided under Sections 399 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Corresponding Sections 438, 440, 442 and 528 of the BNSS) respectively, therefore, the present petitions are maintainable before this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has predominantly raised the plea that since the legislature has provided concurrent jurisdiction of revision to the Sessions Court and the High Court, therefore, the doors of the High Court cannot be shut for the petitioners as the second revision petition is barred under the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the petitioners would be deprived of the invoking jurisdiction of this Court, if the revision petition is relegated to the Sessions Court.

3. This Court has considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. There cannot not be any quarrel to the proposition that the statute provides the concurrent revisional jurisdiction to the Sessions Court and the High Court. The Court is conscious of the settled legal proposition that if a revision petition is directly filed before the High Court, it would be maintainable. The only question which falls for consideration is that whether in the face of such concurrent jurisdiction vested on the Sessions Courts and the High Court, the High Court should ordinarily entertain it or not. This issue becomes more important in view of the heavy pendency in the High Court. The Court is also sensitive to the fact that cost of litigation is astronomical and, therefore, all efforts should be thereto minimise it. The convenience of stake holders is also an important issue. Such an issue is more relevant in big states like West Bengal, where people have to undertake long journey to come to the High Court, which again is a toll on the litigants physically, mentally and economically.

4. Bare perusal of Section 399 and Section 401 Cr.P.C. which are akin to Section 440 and 442 of BNSS makes it clear that the Session Judge and High Court have the concurrent power of revision. Thus, prima facie, the revision petition can be filed either before the High Court or the Sessions Court. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to bear in mind the settled proposition of law is that the revisional jurisdiction is not a matter of right. The legislature has conferred such power on the High Court and Session Court primarily to ensure that the justice is imparted and in accordance with the principles of law and the subordinate criminal courts do not exceed their jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction is primarily to prevent the subordinate court from abusing or misusing the power vested in them. It is also a settled proposition that the High Court is not bound to entertain an application in revision. Reliance can be placed upon Pranab Kumar Mitra vs. State of West Bengal,  AIR 1959 SC 144.

5. The similar question came up before the High Court of Jharkhand in Criminal Revision No. 417 of 2023 titled as Dharam Kumar Saw Alias D.K. Gupta & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. There the plea of the concurrent jurisdiction was also raised and it was canvassed that it is for the litigant to choose the forum. The High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Dharam Kumar Saw Alias D.K. Gupta & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.  (supra) relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Padmanabh Keshav Kamat vs. Anup R. Kantak & Anr.,  1999 Cri. L.J. 122 and, inter alia, held as under:

“8. The above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was the base in a revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Code directly to the High Court before the learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court in Padmanabh Keshav Kamat v. Anup R. Kantak and others,   1999 Cri. L.J. 122, wherein at paragraphs