Short Note : Respondent No. 1, Bilkisbai, who is the wife of the petitioner, filed an application under section 125, Cr.P.C., for grant of maintenance to her. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar, rejected the said application on 20-09-1976. Consequently, respondent No.1 filed a criminal revision against that order, which has been allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and he has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 85 per month to this respondent-wife from 9-6-1977. The short but interesting question raised in the revision was regarding the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to entertain the revision. Held : The right of appeal is a substantive right whereas there is no such right in the case of a revision. Under the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the powers of the Sessions Judge are no longer confined to cases of improper discharge and improper dismissal of complaints. Under section 399 (1) and (2) of the present Code, the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under section 401(1), Cr.P.C. Section 401(1) enables the High Court to exercise in its revisional jurisdiction any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390, 391, etc. Section 397(3) provides that if an application under section 397 to call for the record of an inferior Criminal Court 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. Section 399(3) provides that 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. The effect of these two provisions is that while a person has a choice to move either the High Court or the Sessions Judge under section 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. 2. The effect of these two provisions is that while a person has a choice to move either the High Court or the Sessions Judge under section 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. 2. Similarly section 399(3), Cr.P.C., prohibits a second revision to the High Court by the same person and, therefore, the bar of a second revision is only confined to cases where the criminal revision was dismissed by the Sessions Judge and in such cases, no second revision would lie to the High Court at the instance of the person who lost the revision before the Sessions Judge. But a second revision at the instance of a successful party before the Magistrate, who lost the revision before the Sessions Judge would lie to the High Court. 3. Thus it would appear that though the words 'or which otherwise comes to its knowledge' do not find place in the wording of section 399(1), still the provisions of section 397(3) and 399(3) permit a person to move an application by way of a revision either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge which has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same. Therefore, in my opinion, these provisions do not curtail the revisional jurisdiction of Sessions Judge to entertain a revision application filed by any person and in the present case the revision filed before the learned Sessions Judge was competent and he had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same in accordance with law. Revision dismissed.