ORDER G.L. Oza J. 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. According to the petitioner, an offence under section 436 IPC is registered against him and it is apprehended that he may be arrested and harassed as there is publicity created against the petitioner. He has also filed a pamphlet although he has also submitted an affidavit purporting to be of the person in whose name the pamphlet has been published, to show that the pamphlet has been wrongly published in his name. 3. Learned counsel for the State contended that although an offence under section 436 IPC is registered and investigation is going on, but there is nothing at present to indicate that there is any apprehension in the mind of the petitioner. However, it is contended that it may depend upon the result of the investigation as to whether a case is made out against the petitioner or not. 4. Learned counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection also contenting that as an application under sect ion 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') was filed before the Sessions• Court and has been rejected a second application under section 438 of the Code to this Court is not maintainable as according to learned counsel an application could only be made either to the High Court or to the Court of Session. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Amiya Kumar Sen v. State of West Bengal, 1979 Cr. L.J. 288. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that apparently in a case under section 436 IPC the arrest of the petitioner by the police and keeping him in police custody would be unnecessary and injurious to his reputation as there is no occassion for any recovery being made at his instance except harassment of the petitioner by the police. As regards the preliminary objection, it was contended that in section 438 of the Code the conjunction used 'or' is the same as used in section 397 of the Code, and in section 397, where the Legislature intended to bar two revision applications, one to the Sessions Judge and another to the High Court, they, by providing sub-section (3) of that section specifically prohibited it. And in sect ion 438 as it has not been prohibited, it is apparent that the Legislature felt that the applicant may under section 438 apply to the High Court as well as to the Court of Session. 6. In 1979 Cr. L.J. 288 (supra), the use of the word 'or' in English language has been considered and it has been found that this term can he used in four ways: "(a) An alternative or exclusive sence: (b) An inclusive or non-alternative sence where 'or' is merely equivalent to 'and'; (c) To indicate that one word is synonymous or nearly synonymous with another; and (d) As an equivalent to 'otherwise'." And out of these four possible uses of the conjunction 'or' in this decision it was accepted that it was in the sense (a), i.e., alternative or exclusive, that this word has been used and on this basis it was observed that once an application under section 438 of the Code is rejected by the Sessions Court a similar application un the same facts and for the same offence could not be made to the High Court under section 438 of the Code. In this decision the language of sections 439 and 397 of the Code has also been considered but for these two provisions it was felt that the term 'or' has been used in the sence (b), i.e., where 'or' is equivalent to 'and'. 7. Section 438 falls in the Chapter 'Provisions as to Bail and Bonds'. Section 438 provides for an application to the High Court or the Court of Session. The term used is 'or' and there is nothing else in the provision to indicate that this word 'or' has been used in the sence that it is alternative or exclusive. Such language has been used also in section 439 occurring in the same Chapter of the Code where the phrase used is 'High Court of Court of Section'. The term used is 'or' and there is nothing else in the provision to indicate that this word 'or' has been used in the sence that it is alternative or exclusive. Such language has been used also in section 439 occurring in the same Chapter of the Code where the phrase used is 'High Court of Court of Section'. The decision of the Calcutta High Court referred to above accepts that in section 439 the word 'or' has been used as equivalent of 'and' and therefore an application under section 439 of the Code could be made to the High Court as well as to the Court of Session and it could not be contended that it is exclusive of each other, as in the decision it is observed: "In section 439 we get that the Code gives special powers to the High Court and the Court of Session in the matter of bail as stated there and the language used is "The High Court or the Court of Session may direct......". Here the conjunction 'or' has been used in non-alternative sense equivalent to 'and'." This conclusion about section 439 clearly show that the word 'or' has been used as equivalent to 'and'. The use of the word 'or' in sections 438 and 439 of the Code has no noticeable difference Section 438(2) states, 'When the High Court or the Court of Session make a direction......" and in section 439 the pharase used is 'A High Court or Court of Session may direct ......". With all respect to the learned Judge' deciding the Calcutta case, I do not see any difference between the use of the term 'or' in these two phrases, the one in section 439 and another in section 438 of the Code. 8. This conjunction 'or' has been used in section 397 of the Code as well. In section 397 it is provided, "The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call......" The phraseology is again more or less similar to that used in section 438. Sub-section (3) of section 397 provides: "397...(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". Sub-section (3) of section 397 provides: "397...(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". This sub-section clearly goes to show that the Legislature, when used the term 'or' while providing for powers of the High Court or the Court of Sessions, always felt that the powers are co-extensive and the conjunction 'or has been used where it only means ‘and’. But where the Legislature intended to restrict the use of these powers by one of the two tribunals atone they specifically provided for that purpose which is indicated by sub-section (3) of section 397 of the Code. This sub-section clearly provides that once the powers are exercised by the Session Judge, against the same order revisional powers under section 397 could not be exercised by the High Court. That means, this sub-section prohibits the exercise of powers by both the tribunals, i.e. the Sessions Court or the High Court but restricts it only to either, of them. This scheme of section 397 therefore clearly lays down that the Legislature intended the word 'or' in the scheme of this law to be used as equivalent to 'and' and Whenever they wanted to restrict the exercise of powers by both the tribunals which are coextensive, they restricted the use by a specific provision like sub-section (3) of section 397 of the Code. Apparently, in the provisions contained in sections 439 and 438 of the Code which pertain to bail, the Legislature did not restrict the exercise of power by both the tribunals and no provisions like sub-section (3) of section 397 has been provided foe. It is well established that in order to interpret a term in a particular legislation its use in the same legislation in another provision is the best due for the interpretation. The use of the term 'or', while conferring revisional jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Session, used in the provisions in section 397 of the Code, therefore, could be safely used as a clue interpret the word 'or', in section 438 or 439 of the Code. 9. The use of the term 'or', while conferring revisional jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Session, used in the provisions in section 397 of the Code, therefore, could be safely used as a clue interpret the word 'or', in section 438 or 439 of the Code. 9. In this view of the matter, therefore it could not be contended that once an application under section 438 of the Code is rejected by the Sessions Court another application on the same facts and for the same offence could not be made to the High Court. It would amount to reading something in the provision which is not intended. Consequently, with all respect to the Calcutta High Court I do not feel inclined to accept that view. The preliminary objection is therefore overruled. 10. In the facts of this case as it is apparent, the petitioner is not required for any investigation. As a matter of fact, as learned counsel appearing for State states, the investigation is still in progress and it is not certain whether the police may require the arrest of the petitioner. But apparently, it being a case under section 436 IPC, and as the facts stand there is no occasion or any purpose in keeping the petitioner in police custody for any investigation or any recovery, consequently the arrest of the petitioner, if at all, is needed only for the purpose of completing the formality so that he may be produced for trial before the Court. Under these circumstances in my opinion the application deserves to be allowed. 11. The application is therefore 'allowed and it is directed that if the police want to arrest the petitioner they shall release him on his furnishing a bond for Rs.3000/- (three thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. However, the petitioner shall undertake in the bond not to leave the jurisdiction of the police station without informing the station house officer during the pendency of the investigation and shall also remain present as 'and when required by the investigating officer for the purpose of investigation. 12. Copy of this order be given to counsel on payment of charges today.