ORDER H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This application in revision raises an important question of law. 2. Proceedings u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated in the court of SDM III Anupshahr in respect of the land in dispute between the parties. The aforesaid proceedings terminated in favour of the opposite parties, who were held to be in possession of the land and the Applicants were restrained by the SDM under his order dated 2-2-1966 from interfering with their possession. 3. Applicants came up in revision to the District Magistrate. 4. The DM without going into the merits held that he was not competent to hear the revision and directed the Applicants to file it before a court of the competent jurisdiction, if they so desired. Aggrieved by the order of the DM, Applicants have come up in revision before this Court. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the DM is competent to hear an application in revision against an order passed by a Magistrate, 1st Class in a case u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In order to determine this question, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Code which are quoted below: Section 10:--(1) In every district outside the Presidency-towns the State Government shall appoint a Magistrate of the first class, who shall be called the DM. (2) The State Government may appoint any Magistrate of the first class to be an ADM and such ADM shall have all or any of the powers of a DM under this Code, or under any other law for the time being in force, as the State Government may direct. (3) For the purposes of Section 192, Sub-section (1) and Section 528, Sub-sections (2) and (3), such ADM shall be deemed to be subordinate to the DM. Section 12:--(1) The State Government may appoint as many persons as it thinks fit, besides the DM, to be Magistrates of the first, second or third class in any district outside the Presidency towns; and the State Government or the DM, subject to the control of the State Government, may, from time to time, define local areas within which such persons may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code. (2) Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of such persons shall extend throughout such district. Section 13:--(1) The State Government may place any Magistrate of the first or second class in charge of a sub-division, relieve him of the charge as occasion requires. (2) Such Magistrate shall be called SDM. and Section 17(1):--All Magistrates appointed Under Sections 12, 13 and 14 and all Benches constituted u/s 15, shall be subordinate to the DM and he may, from time to time, make rules or give special orders consistent with this Code as to the distribution of business among such Magistrates and Benches. 7. A perusal of Section 17(1) makes it obvious that all Magistrates appointed u/s 12, 13 and 14 of whichever class, are subordinate to the DM. In other words, the court of a first class Magistrate in the district is subordinate to that of the DM--both in judicial and executive capacity. In the case of Gur Dayal ILR 1879 All Vol. II, 205 a Full Bench of this Court consisting of Sir Robert Stuart, Kt. Chief Justice and three other learned Judges had held as early as in the year 1879 that "a Magistrate of the 1st Class is subordinate to the Magistrate of the District and consequently application for sanction to prosecute a person for intentionally giving false evidence before the former may, where such sanction is refused by the former, be made to the latter...." Section 435 of the Code which invests revisional powers in courts reads: 435 (1). The High Court or any Sessions Judge or DM,...empowered by the State Government in this behalf, may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within the local limits of its or his jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation:--All Magistrates, whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 437. (2) If any Sub-Divisional Magistrate acting Under Sub-section (1) considers that any such finding, sentence or order is illegal or improper, or that any such proceedings are irregular, he shall forward the record, with such remarks thereon as he thinks fit, to the DM. (3) Repealed by Act XVIII of 1923,--Section 116. (4) If an application under this section has been made either to the Sessions Judge or DM, no further application shall be entertained by the other of them. 8. This section invests concurrent re-visional jurisdiction in the DM, Sessions Judge and the High Court in respect of "any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situate within the local limits of its or his jurisdiction...." The object of this revisional jurisdiction is to invest the superior criminal courts with a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law or irregularity of proceedings which had taken place before the inferior criminal courts. 9. The question naturally which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether a SDM who enjoys judicial powers of a First Class Magistrate as is done by the DM is or is not an inferior criminal court to that of the DM within the meaning; of this section. 10. Inferior means one who is statutorily incompetent to hold or exercise equal powers; it carries with it the idea of subordination which means 'inferior in rank' Priya Gopal, 9 Bom 100 (103). In the case of Badmanabha (ILR 1885 Mad Vol. 18) it was held by a Full Bench of four learned judges that the term "inferior" in Section 435 includes the term "subordinate" as used in Section 436 Code of Criminal Procedure and a DM has power to call for and examine the record of a proceeding before a SDM of first class. It is, therefore, obvious that a court which is subordinate to the court of the DM must be inferior to his Court within the meaning of Section 436 Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Section 17, Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that all Magistrates shall be subordinate to the DM. It is, therefore, obvious that a court which is subordinate to the court of the DM must be inferior to his Court within the meaning of Section 436 Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Section 17, Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that all Magistrates shall be subordinate to the DM. It must, therefore, be held that a plain reading of Section 435 along with Section 17 of the Act makes it evident that the court of a SDM is not only subordinate to that of the DM but is also inferior to it as a criminal court within the meaning of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There may be inferiority without subordination but there cannot be subordination without inferiority, as subordinate means inferior in rank. Therefore, when the Magistrates in a district are made subordinate to the DM u/s 17, Code of Criminal Procedure it must be held that they are inferior courts to that of the DM and as such amenable to his revisional jurisdiction. 13. The question as to whether a DM is competent to call for the record of a Magistrate of the First Class and to deal with it u/s 437 of the Code as it stood then came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court consisting of Sir W. Comer Patheram, C.J. and three other learned Judges in the year 1885 ILR 1885 All. 8 853 and it was answered in the affirmative. A similar view was taken by a Full Bench of the five learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Opendra Nath Ghose v. Dukhini Bewa ILR 1886 Cal. 8 473 and it was held that a Magistrate of a district is competent u/s 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for and deal with the record of any proceeding before any Magistrate of whatever classes in his own district. A division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has also taken the same view in the case of Thakur Jaikrit Singh and Others Vs. Sohan Raj, AIR 1959 Raj 63 . 14. It is, therefore, obvious that the view taken by the DM that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application in revision is wholly erroneous and the impugned order must be quashed. 15. In the result, this revision is allowed. Sohan Raj, AIR 1959 Raj 63 . 14. It is, therefore, obvious that the view taken by the DM that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application in revision is wholly erroneous and the impugned order must be quashed. 15. In the result, this revision is allowed. The impugned order of the DM is quashed and he is directed to hear the application in revision filed by the Applicants for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order and to deal with it in accordance with law. The interim order of stay is vacated. Let the record of the case be sent to the court below as expeditiously as possible.