Judgment :- 1. Crl. R. P. Nos. 409 and 411 of 1974 have been referred to a Division Bench since the question involved is one of importance and of frequent occurrence and an authoritative decision is necessary for laying down the procedure in future in entertaining criminal revisions by this Court. We extract below the reference order in full: "Under the new Cr. P.Code, Sessions Judges have been given wider and plenary powers of revision equal or almost equal to those of the High Court as could be seen from S.399 and 401. In view of these provisions it requires to be settled as a matter of practice whether in cases where the parties can obtain effective relief at the Sessions Court, the High Court should entertain revision. I think it proper that the question is considered by a Bench. Place this revision before a Bench early next week, if possible on Monday as it is represented that the matter is urgent". 2. Crl. R. P. No. 409 of 1974 arises from an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam, in an application under S.488 of the old Cr. P. C. Crl. R. P. No. 411 of 1974 arises from an order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perintalmanna, in proceedings under S.145 of the Crl. P.C. The petitioners have come to this Court direct without moving the Sessions Court. The question to be considered is whether the new Code enacts a procedure different from the one followed hitherto. 3. Under the old Code, powers of revision were contained in S.435 and 439. S.435 reads as follows: "435 (1). P.C. The petitioners have come to this Court direct without moving the Sessions Court. The question to be considered is whether the new Code enacts a procedure different from the one followed hitherto. 3. Under the old Code, powers of revision were contained in S.435 and 439. S.435 reads as follows: "435 (1). The High Court or any Sessions Judge or District Magistrate, or any Sub-Divisional Magistrate 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 when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence 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 (4) If an application under this section has been made either to the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate, no further application shall be entertained by the other of them." Under this section the High Court, Sessions Judge, District Magistrate or any Sub Divisional Magistrate empowered by the Government bad the power to call for the records and examine them for the. purpose mentioned therein. S.436 enables the High Court or the Sessions Judge on examination of any records under S.435 or otherwise, to direct the District Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under S.203 or S.204(3) or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged. S.438 enabled the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate on examining the record of any proceeding, report for the orders of the High Court, the result of such examination. S.439 conferred the power of revision on the High Court. 4. These sections have been altered by the new Act and the said sections are at present remembered as 397, 399 and 401. These sections are extracted in full which read as follows: "397. Calling for records to exercise power of revision. S.439 conferred the power of revision on the High Court. 4. These sections have been altered by the new Act and the said sections are at present remembered as 397, 399 and 401. These sections are extracted in full which read as follows: "397. Calling for records to exercise power of revision. The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as 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 Executive or judicial and 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 S.398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them. 398. Power to order inquiry. On examining any record under S.397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further enquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under S.203 or sub-section (4) of S.204 or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged; Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for enquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made. 399. Sessions Judge's powers of revision. 399. Sessions Judge's powers of revision. (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of S.401. (2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-section (1), the provisions of sub-sections, (2), (3). (4) and (5) of S.401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub-sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions judge. (3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court. XX X 401. High Court's powers of revision. (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by S.386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by S.307 and, when the judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by S.392. (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. (4) Where under this code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. (4) Where under this code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly." 5. The new amended sections mark a distinct departure from the old section in certain important respects. Before the new Act, the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate could entertain any revision petition but could pass effective orders only against orders by which complaints were dismissed under S.203 or S.204 (3) or where a person was discharged. In all other cases, the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate had to refer the matter to this Court for final orders. 6. S.435 is now replaced by S.397. In S.397 the words "or District Magistrate, or any Sub Divisional Magistrate empowered by the State Government in this behalf" after "Sessions Judge" that occurred in S.435 have been omitted. Old sub-section (4) of S.435 has been re-drafted and in its place we have sub-S. 397 (3). This sub-section has presented some difficulty to us in arriving at the decision that we have taken, since this sub-section indirectly permits an aggrieved party to move either this Court or the Sessions Judge. We will refer to this aspect at the appropriate stage. S.397 (2) is a new introduction. Under this sub-section all revisions from interlocutory orders passed in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceedings are barred. 7. From the amended section what we find is that the power of revision is now given only to the High Court and the Sessions Judge. The revisional powers under the Code are now contained in S.397 to 402. Under this sub-section all revisions from interlocutory orders passed in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceedings are barred. 7. From the amended section what we find is that the power of revision is now given only to the High Court and the Sessions Judge. The revisional powers under the Code are now contained in S.397 to 402. The powers of the High Court and the Sessions Judge are to call for records of inferior criminal Courts for satisfying itself or himself as to the legality, correctness or propriety of any finding, sentence or order and the regularity of any proceeding. Under S.398, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate to make and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any Subordinate Magistrate to make further enquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed or in the case of an accused discharged. S.399 provides for the nature of orders that can be passed by a Sessions Judge when revisions go before him and S.401, relates to powers of High Court when revisions are filed before it. 8. S.397 and 399 appear in Chapter XXX. The heading given to S.397 is "calling for records to exercise powers of revision" and to S.399, is "Sessions Judges' powers of revision" and to S.401, "High Court's powers of revision". S.397 provides the machinery by which records are called for and revisional matters come before the High Court, and Sessions Judge while S.401 and 399 provide for the nature of the orders to be passed and the power of disposal. 9. It is now contended that since the power of revision in the High Court and the Sessions Judge are concurrent the Sessions Judge getting wider powers to pass effective orders in all cases it cannot be said that the Sessions Court is a Court inferior to the High Court in such matters. This argument is pressed into service in order to reinforce the point that the High Court cannot return a revision to the Sessions judge once it is filed before it. While considering the concurrent powers of the Sessions Judge and the High Court in passing effective and final orders in matters of revision coming before them it cannot be forgotten or overlooked that the High Court has got a power of judicial superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals under Art.227 of the Constitution. While considering the concurrent powers of the Sessions Judge and the High Court in passing effective and final orders in matters of revision coming before them it cannot be forgotten or overlooked that the High Court has got a power of judicial superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals under Art.227 of the Constitution. This power of superintendence is exercisable in civil as well as in criminal proceedings. The Sessions Courts are at all times Courts inferior to the High Court in view of its over-all superintendence of Courts below it. The High Court possesses a general power of superintendence over the actions of Courts subordinate to it. On its administrative side, the power is known as the power of superintendence. On the judicial side it is known as the power of revision. The High Court can at any stage, of its own motion, if it so desires, and certainly when illegalities or irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice, call for the records and examine them for the purpose of satisfying itself 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 Court. 10. Be that as it may, the question to be decided here is whether a party can move the High Court in revision straightaway or should he move the Sessions Judge first. To put it differently, whether the High Court can, as in the case before us, compel the aggrieved parties to first agitate their case before the Sessions Judge. In other words, is there a bar, in view of the provisions in the new Code, for an aggrieved party in leap-frogging the Sessions Judge and coming to this Court straight. 11. We feel that the introduction of S.399 alters the practice hitherto followed. The said section enacts that the Sessions Judge can exercise all or any of the powers exercisable by the High Court in revision under S.401(1) as provided for in sub-s. (1) of S.399. Sub-s. (3) of the section provides that the order of the Sessions Judge will be final for the party who moved him. The fact that the orders of the Sessions Judge are made final by this sub-section clearly indicates the intention of the Legislature to make the Sessions judge as far as possible the final Court of revision. Sub-s. (3) of the section provides that the order of the Sessions Judge will be final for the party who moved him. The fact that the orders of the Sessions Judge are made final by this sub-section clearly indicates the intention of the Legislature to make the Sessions judge as far as possible the final Court of revision. However, we would like to clarify the position of finality contemplated by sub-s.(3) of S.399 at this stage. The finality of the order of the Sessions Judge attaches only in relation to the person who or on whose behalf the Sessions Judge was moved, which means that the decision of the Sessions Judge in a revision cannot be final for the person aggrieved by it. In other words, the concurrent findings of the Sessions Judge and the courts below become final while in cases where the Sessions Judge reverses the order of the Court below in revision, the defeated party is Hot barred to move the High Court under S.399(3). 12. The position under the old Code is concluded so far as this Court is concerned by the full Bench decision of this Court in Narayanan v. Kannamma Bhargavi 1968 KLT 495 (F.B). The question referred to the Full Bench in that case was whether a party invoking the revisional jurisdiction vested under S.435 Crl. P. C. can straightaway move the High Court or that he should first move the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate and then only the High Court. Till then, so far as this Court was concerned and various other High Courts in India were concerned, the rule was, that the party had to move the Sessions judge or the District Magistrate first and the High Court will entertain the application only after the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate was moved. A Division Bench of this Court in Devaki v. Kitta 1967 KLT 31, Nambiyar J., speaking for the Court, upheld the said practice and laid down the procedure for this Court that the party invoking revisional jurisdiction under S.435 had to approach the Sessions judge first before moving this Court. In a Division Bench ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ramayya v. Venkata, AIR. In a Division Bench ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ramayya v. Venkata, AIR. 1956 A. P. 97, Subba Rao C. J., as he then was, who spoke for the Court, on a review of the relevant authorities, observed that the practice followed by all the High Courts except Madras was, not to entertain revisions directly in the High Court from orders of Subordinate Magistrate, unless the aggrieved party in the first instance had moved the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate as the case may be, or unless there are special, exceptional or extraordinary grounds to move the High Court direct. To the same effect is the decision of a Full Bench decision of the same Court in Alopati Sriramamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR. 1959 A.P. 377, Nambiyar J. specking for the Bench in 1967 KLT 31 fell in line with the reasoning of Subba Rao C. J. in the Division Bench and that of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 13. However, the Full Bench of this Court, Sadasivan J. speaking for the Court, in the decision in 1968 KLT 495, after considering the reasoning of the Division Bench of this Court referred to above as well as the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held: "On a careful survey of the authorities bearing on the point and on considering carefully the points for and against, we are of the view that a party invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under S.439 read with S.435 should be permitted to come to this Court direct, without first moving the Sessions judge or the District Magistrate. The jurisdiction vested in this Court under S.439 is very wide, and this Court in exercising the jurisdiction so vested, is not expected to enquire whether the party seeking the remedy had moved the Sessions Judge first." At the same time, this Court also held that where effective orders can be passed by the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate, namely, in orders of dismissal of complaint under S.203 and 204 (3) and in orders of discharge, the party should be compelled to move the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate and wound up by saying: "We are of the view that it would be improper to compel a party having a strong case in his favour under S.439 of the Code to approach first the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate." 14. If the ratio of this case is to be applied to revisions even after the introduction of the new Code, then the matter is simple. The Full Bench has laid down that when the Sessions Judge can pass effective orders, the party should be compelled to approach the said Court. This is the matter which needs clarification as per the reference order. 15. We have seen that there are two opposing views. One view is for moving the Sessions Judge first and then the High Court. The other view is giving freedom to the aggrieved party to move the High Court direct. The two views are based on the following grounds. In the first case, the reasons are (1) the time of the High Court will not be wasted with frivolous applications; (2) the High Court will have the advantage of the opinion of the Court below so that its work will be considerably lightened; (3) the Subordinate Courts are within the easy reach of the parties and. litigation will be cheaper; and (4) conflict of decisions can be avoided. For the opposing view, the reasons can be summarised as (1) the subordinate Courts have no plenary powers to pass effective orders in all cases; (2) the party will have to make arrangements for representing him in two courts; and (3) that at the High Court level the party would get finality of the position. 16. The question for our decision is, as to what is the impact of the provisions of the new Code on the Full Bench decision of this Court. 16. The question for our decision is, as to what is the impact of the provisions of the new Code on the Full Bench decision of this Court. The Full Bench has laid down that in cases where effective orders can be passed by the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate, the party should be compelled to move them first. Now S.399 confers plenary powers of revision on the Sessions Judge. The new section confers on the Sessions Judge the power to pass effective orders in revision and such orders are made final under S.399 (3). Still, can an aggrieved party move this Court direct ignoring the Sessions Judge. It has to be remembered that there is no right in a party to file a revision just like the right in a party to file an appeal. The revision can be dismissed in limine. The Court has the power to dismiss a revision even at the admission stage. Not so an appeal, and therefore, it cannot be said that the party has a right to move either the Sessions Judge or this Court in revision. The question therefore is whether a party can be permitted to move this Court direct without moving the Sessions Judge. 17. The object of S.399 appears to us to be to lighten the work of the High Court, to make litigation cheap, to discourage indiscriminate resort to revision in the High Court and to allow parties to approach Courts nearer to them for redress. It might be said that by denying the parties to move this Court direct, we will be denying the parties the benefit of this Court's decision. We shall answer this presently. 18. We do not have in the Code of Criminal Procedure a section similar to S.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads that "every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it." Although such a section is absent in the Criminal Procedure Code, a reference to S.6, 26 etc. will show that even though the High Court and the Sessions Court have power to try any offence, the practice set up by the Code is to file a complaint by moving the Court of lowest jurisdiction. The Code contemplates institution of proceedings in the Court of lowest jurisdiction. will show that even though the High Court and the Sessions Court have power to try any offence, the practice set up by the Code is to file a complaint by moving the Court of lowest jurisdiction. The Code contemplates institution of proceedings in the Court of lowest jurisdiction. Therefore, it has to be held that in revisional jurisdiction also, it is the Sessions Judge that has to be moved first. 19. An additional reason why we say that it is the Sessions Judge who has to be moved first is because of the bar contained in S.399 (3) of the Code. S.399 (3) reads as follows: "399 (3). Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court." This section lays down that the order of the Sessions Judge in revision is final and no further revision lies to the High Court. But the bar is a qualified bar. The most important words in this section are that "the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final", which means that the finality of the orders of the Sessions Judge is confined to the person at whose instance the petition is moved. This, we feel, has been deliberately so provided. For, if a person is permitted to move this Court direct from the order of a Magistrate that would result in a serious injustice in certain cases. When an order is passed, in revision by this Court and that matter is in reversal of the order passed by the Magistrate, the said order becomes final and the aggrieved party cannot thereafter move this Court either in revision or by other proceedings. His remedy then is only to move the Supreme Court. On the other hand, if the party had moved the Sessions Judge and bad succeeded there, the opposite party who lost before the Sessions Judge could move the High Court in revision again, since as indicated above, the finality of the order of the. Sessions Judge attaches itself only in relation to the person by whom or on whose behalf the Sessions Judge was moved. Sessions Judge attaches itself only in relation to the person by whom or on whose behalf the Sessions Judge was moved. We had adverted earlier to the difficulty posed by S.397 (3) in arriving at our conclusion. This sub-section indirectly lays down that a party can move either Sessions judge or the High Court and that if either of them is moved, the other cannot entertain an application from the same party. S.435 (4) also contained a similar provision but that was in relation to the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate. Now since full revisional power is conferred on the Sessions Judge and the High Court S.397 (3) has to be read with S.399 (3). These two sections should co-exist. A harmonious construction of these two sections persuade us to hold that legislative intent is to make the Sessions Judge, as far as possible, the final Court of revision. 20. We think therefore that the ratio of the Full Bench decision in 1968 KLT 495 applies with greater force under the new Code. This question has not been raised so far, before any Court. The only decision brought to our notice is the one reported in P. Abbulu v. State 1975 Crl. L. J. 139 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 21. The Andhra Pradesh High Court was governed by the Full Bench decision of the said Court reported in 1959 Crl. L. J. 822 (AIR. 1959 A. P. 377), which laid down that except under exceptional circumstances the party has to move the Sessions Judge first before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court. The case in question cited above, came before a Division Bench, on a reference as to whether the rule of practice laid down by the Full Bench should be continued after the introduction of the new section in the Criminal Procedure Code. Chinnappa Reddy J., speaking for the Court observed that there have been radical departures from the Code of 1898 in the new Code and that the powers of the Sessions Judge to interfere in revision are ho longer confined to cases of improper discharge and improper dismissals of complaints. It was held that the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under S.401(1) which takes in powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by S.386, 389, 390, 391 etc. It was held that the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under S.401(1) which takes in powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by S.386, 389, 390, 391 etc. The learned judge observed: "The conferment of full revisional powers on the Sessions Judge by the 1973 Code should make the observations of the Full Bench in Alopati Sri Ramamurthy's case ((1959) II Andhra Weekly Reporter 1 =1959 Crl. L.J. 822) applicable with greater force and vigour However, that cannot be, because of S.397(3) and S.399(3) The effect of these two provisions is that, while a person has the choice to move either the High Court or the Sessions Judge under S.397, if he chooses to go before the Sessions judge, he cannot thereafter go before the High Court even if the Sessions Judge rejects his revision application This is quite unlike the position under the 1898 Code. The rule of practice laid down be the Full Bench under the old Code is inconsistent with the scheme of the new Code. The High Court can no longer follow the rule of practice and refuse to entertain a petition under S.397(1) on the ground that the Sessions Judge has not been moved because once the Sessions Judge is moved, the High Court's jurisdiction will stand ousted by S.397(3) and 399(3)." 22. With great respect, we feel constrained to disagree with the observation of the learned judge in the above decision. As stated above, S.397,399 and 401 have been enacted with a specific purpose. The object of the amendment is, as far as possible, to have finality at the Sessions Court stage. The reasoning contained in the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment that jurisdiction of the High Court stands ousted by S.397(3) and 399(3) does not, with great respect, appeal to us. What is laid down in S.399(3) is only that the High Court's jurisdiction is ousted only in cases where a party concurrently fails before the trial Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge. The jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain revision petitions at the instance of the party who lost before the Sessions Judge survives. What is laid down in S.399(3) is only that the High Court's jurisdiction is ousted only in cases where a party concurrently fails before the trial Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge. The jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain revision petitions at the instance of the party who lost before the Sessions Judge survives. As observed by us above, to allow a party to move the High Court straight, would be denying the other side the opportunity to move the High Court and driving him to the Supreme Court. If the Sessions Judge confirms the order of the Magistrate, there will be no revision therefrom. If he reverses it, the High Court can be approached by the aggrieved party. 23. We have given our anxious consideration to the question involved in this case. Anxious, because by this decision we will be denying an opportunity to parties to move this Court direct and to get an authoritative pronouncement from this Court and also to get the services of eminent lawyers practising in the High Court. We do not think this apprehension is well-founded. We are not denying any party the benefits of this Court's decision in cases where there is a conflict of decisions between the trial Court and the Sessions Judge. The aggrieved party can again come to this Court. S.399(3) has made the order of the Sessions Judge final, and to allow a party to come to this Court direct, would be to completely defeat the purpose of that section. If every party comes to this Court direct, ignoring the Sessions Judge, then S.399 (3) becomes unnecessary. That is not the object of the section. S.299(3) bears out the object with which it was enacted and that is to make the order passed by the Sessions Judge confirming the order of the Magistrate, final. 24. We, therefore, hold relying upon the Full Bench ruling laid down in 1968 KLT 495 and on the basis of the new sections of the Code that no party can approach this Court direct without moving the Sessions judge at the first instance in revision. Crl. R. P. Nos. 409 and 411 are therefore returned to be re-presented before the Sessions Judge. These revisions will be presented before the respective Sessions Judges within 15 days of this order. 25. Crl. R. P. 393 of 1974 deals with the operation of S.399(3) direct. Crl. R. P. Nos. 409 and 411 are therefore returned to be re-presented before the Sessions Judge. These revisions will be presented before the respective Sessions Judges within 15 days of this order. 25. Crl. R. P. 393 of 1974 deals with the operation of S.399(3) direct. In that case which was instituted by the Director of Enforcement, New Delhi, the 2nd accused filed an application as M. P. No. 1411 of 1973 praying that the complaint be dismissed for non-compliance with S.23D(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act etc. The Magistrate dismissed the petition. A revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, who also as per the order in Crl. R. P. No. 27 of 1973 dismissed the application stating that: "There is absolutely no merit in this petition and the petitioner has only succeeded in protracting the trial of the complaint which as in 1971". Since the Sessions Judge has confirmed the order of the District Magistrate, his order has become final under S.399(3) and for that reason this petition will not lie. Crl. R.P. No. 393 of 1974 is therefore dismissed.