JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 590, Indian Penal Code against non-petitioner No. 2 to 6 with the allegation that on 21-1072, when the General Manager, Northern Railway came to Jodhpur, slogans of `Murdabad' were raised against the petitioner and a memorandum against him was given to him. That, the news regarding this was published in the 'Raildoot issue dated 30.10.1972. Complainant was examined by the Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1 Jodhpur. The learned Magistrate did not find any case to issue process against persons complained against and by his order dated 24-6-73 dismissed the complaint. 2. Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner preferred revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The petition was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur who by his judgment dated 10-6-74 dismissed the revision petition. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur, the petitioner has now preferred this revision petition in this Court. 4. Non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 were served. Non-petitioner No. 6 was not served and the petitioner filed an application here and sought permission to delete him from the array of the non-petitioners. 5. Mr. M.C. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of non-petitioner No. 1 State of Rajasthan. None appeared on behalf of the remaining non-petitioners who have been served. 6. I, heard Mr. P.C. Tatia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.C. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 7. At the commencement of the arguments Mr. Bhati raised a preliminary objection that as a revision petition had already been filed in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, the second revision petition is not maintainable by virtue of the bar created under section 397 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 8. Mr. Tatia met out this argument by placing reliance on the case of P. Philip v. The Director of Enforcement, New Delhi and another, 1975 Cri.I.J. 920 . 9. This preliminary objection does not require much consideration in view of the principle enunciated in the above referred case. In that case the revision petition, pending in the Sessions Court at the time of the implementation of the new Cr.P.C., was considered to be an application under section 435 of the old Cr. 9. This preliminary objection does not require much consideration in view of the principle enunciated in the above referred case. In that case the revision petition, pending in the Sessions Court at the time of the implementation of the new Cr.P.C., was considered to be an application under section 435 of the old Cr. P. C. and therefore, it was held that its decision was according to the revisions of Section 435 of the old Cr. P. C. In that view of the matter, the finding of High Court that in view of Section 397 (3) of the new Cr. P. C. the revision petition in the High Court was not maintainable was held to be erroneous. 10. In the present case, the revision petition had been filed in the year 1973 and was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur on the date of the enforcement of the new Code. Hence the saving provision of Section 482 (2) of the new Code are attracted and the impugned order of the revisional court would be deemed to have been passed under section 435 of the old Code. In such circumstances, there is no bar for entertaining the revision petition by this Court. 11. Coming to the merits of the case, Mr. Tatia strenuously contended that from the statement of the complainant it was duly established that slogans of 'Murdabad' were raised against him at the time the General Manager of Northern Railway arrived at Jodhpur and memorandum was also given, which lowered the prestige of the complainant. According to the learned counsel the conduct of Editor, 'Raildoot' non-petitioner No. 2 was to bring defamatory matter before the public at large and therefore, a case was clearly made out. According to the learned counsel, the learned Magistrate has erred in looking into the matter from the point of view as to whether conviction can be based on such evidence or not which he should not have done at that stage. Mr. Tatia further argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration all these arguments. 12. Mr. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor, supporting the impugned orders submitted, that there being no material at all there was no illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the revisional court upholding that finding. 13. Mr. Tatia further argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration all these arguments. 12. Mr. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor, supporting the impugned orders submitted, that there being no material at all there was no illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint and the revisional court upholding that finding. 13. The perusal of the record shows that the complainant examined himself alone. Despite opportunity being given he could not produce any evidence at the trial. The order of the Magistrate is a reasoned one. has discussed in detail the statement of the complainant in the light of the allegations levelled and has correctly arrived at a conclusion that there was no allegation against the alleged accused persons to have raised the slogans. The learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the statement of the complainant that the facts published in the newspaper were correct. That is to say, he had admitted that portion A to B and C to D of the news paper article were correct so much so that slogans were really raised and memorandum against the complainant was handed over to the General Manager at his arrival to Jodhpur. 14. The learned Magistrate has also taken into consideration the inordinate, unexplained delay in filing the complaint. The raising of slogans and filing of the memorandum relates to the 21-10-72 and the date of news paper is 31-10-72 while the complaint has been filed as late as on 8-5-73. 15. All these reasons given by the learned Magistrate have been correctly considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur and therefore, neither of the orders can be said to be illegal, incorrect or improper so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdictions. 16. Consequently, the revision petition having no merits is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******