JUDGMENT 1. -This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 6th April, 1983, whereby he set-aside the orders dated 11.5.82, 20-10.78 and 26.5.81 passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. An application was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate with the request to recall his previous orders dated 20.10.78 and 26.5.81. Learned Magistrate rejected the application on 11.5.82 and held that he has no power to recall his own orders as prayed in the application. The application was. therefore, rejected. The non-petitioners went in revision against that order before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who agreeing with the non-petitioners set-aside the order of the learned Magistrate, dated 11.5.1982. He has also set-aside the previous orders of the same Magistrate, dated 20.10.78 and 26.5.1981. Against this order, the petitioners have come in revision. 3. It has been argued that the Sessions Judge has limited scope in the revisions petitions Learned Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to set-aside the orders dated 20.10.78 and 26.5.81 as there was no revision against these two orders. The order dated 11.5.1982 of the learned Magistrate was challenged in revision petition before the Sessions Judge and he could have only decided this revision on the point of this order. While accepting the revision petition, he set-aside the order dated 11.5.82 and also the orders dated 20.10.78 and 26.5.1981. This is beyond his jurisdiction. While accepting the revision petition the Sessions Judge should have remanded the case to the learned Magistrate directing that he can recall his own order and pass necessary orders after hearing the parties. But in spite of giving this decision, the learned Sessions Judge exceeded his powers and decided that cognisance taken by the learned Magistrate on this complaint is also set-aside. When the cognisance was taken by the learned Magistrate, it was for the non-petitioners to go in revision or appeal. 4. The petitioner has come up in revision before this Court. But in spite of giving this decision, the learned Sessions Judge exceeded his powers and decided that cognisance taken by the learned Magistrate on this complaint is also set-aside. When the cognisance was taken by the learned Magistrate, it was for the non-petitioners to go in revision or appeal. 4. The petitioner has come up in revision before this Court. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sessions Judge has exceeded his powers and the order of the learned Magistrate is bad, but this Court certainly has the power to look into the whole matter in the interest of Justice and see whether in the circumstances of this case, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is to be accepted or rejected. 5. To understand this case, I would like to mention some facts for coming to this Court by the petitioner In the year 1975, a complaint was filed against the non-petitioners under Sections 408, 477 IPC by one Mohan Lal Joshi on behalf of the Managing Committee, Adarsh Vidhya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. After recording statements, learned Magistrate registered the complaint and issued process against the non-petitioners on 6.5.75. The case was fixed for the evidence of the complainant before framing charge. On 17.12.75, Mohan Lal Joshi who filed the complaint was absent and the complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate in default on 17.12.1975. Thereafter on 20.12.1977, a second complaint was filed on the similar facts before the Magistrate. In that complaint the reasons for not appearing Mohan Lal Joshi on 17.12.1975 were mentioned. The reason as given is that on account of emergency a warrant of arrest under MISA was issued against Mohan Lal Joshi and on account of that warrant, Mohan Lal had gone under-ground, so he could not attend the Court on 17.12.1975. It was also mentioned that the Management of Adarsh Vidhya Mandir was taken by the Government under D. I. R. On account of these two reasons the second complaint was registered on 20.10.1978. Learned Magistrate issued process against the accused non-petitioners on 26.5.1981. When the accused non-petitioners attended the Court they filed an application on 8.3.1982 for recalling the order of taking cognisance by the Magistrate. That application was rejected on 11.5.1982. Learned Magistrate issued process against the accused non-petitioners on 26.5.1981. When the accused non-petitioners attended the Court they filed an application on 8.3.1982 for recalling the order of taking cognisance by the Magistrate. That application was rejected on 11.5.1982. Against that order the accused non-petitioners went in revision before the Sessions Judge, who accepted the revision petition, set-aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated J 1.5.1982 and consequently set-aside the orders dated 20.10.1978 and 26.5.1981 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. I am of the view that it is unnecessary to drag on this case after such a long time. Originally the complaint was filed in 1975 and it was dismissed in default on 17.12.75. The second complaint was filed on 20.12.1977 and I do not agree with the reasons given for filing the second complaint at the late stage as mentioned in the complaint itself. The complaint was filed on behalf of Vidhya Mandir by Mohan Lal Joshi. If Mohan Lal was not present on 17.12.1975, the Management Committee of Adarsh Vidhya Mandir could have appointed another person to pursue the complaint. They could have requested the learned Magistrate that under such circumstances Mohan Lal Joshi has gone underground and the complaint should be proceeded further. Their counsel could have requested the learned Magistrate to exempt the personal attendance of Mohal Lal Joshi. But the case was not pursuaded. The complaint was dismissed in default. The reason that Mohan Lal Joshi had gone under-ground on account of some apprehension of arrest, is no reason for not appearing in court on 17.12.1975. This is also no reason that the Government has taken-over the Vidhya Mandir under their control. For two years the Adarsh Vidhya Mandir waited and on 20.10.77 the second complaint was filed As argued that some-where in July, 1977, the institute was again handed over to the old Management so in the month of December, 1977, they filed second complaint. This second complaint was also filed after about four months and no explanation has been given for this period also. Learned Magistrate while registering the case and issuing the process against the non-petitioners might have not considered this aspect. As there was no bar to file second complaint when the first one has been dismissed in default the Magistrate has taken the cognisance of the second complaint. Learned Magistrate while registering the case and issuing the process against the non-petitioners might have not considered this aspect. As there was no bar to file second complaint when the first one has been dismissed in default the Magistrate has taken the cognisance of the second complaint. It is argued that the learned Magistrate on 20-10-19 7 8 satisfied himself and after his satisfaction he ordered the registration of the complaint. In my opinion the learned Magistrate has committed this error. He should have considered the aspects of this case that the complaint is pending since 1975 and what were the reasons for not pursuing the complaint on 17-12-1975. I think the point of delay in filing the second complaint was not in the mind of the learned Magistrate. Whatever may be the deposition and what circumstances considered by him are not before this Court Mere writing that I am satisfied that the second complaint is in order for registration is not sufficient. No doubt the non-petitioners should have gone against the order of taking cognisance by the Magistrate but in the revision the learned Sessions Judge has considered this aspect also and decided as a consequence of setting-aside the order of dated 11-5-1982. The order taking cognisance by the Magistrate has been set-aside. By accepting the revision petition the Sessions Judge could have given direction to the learned Magistrate about re-hearing parties on the application dated 8-3-1982 but the learned Sessions Judge himself decided this matter. It is in the interest of Justice that the learned Sessions Judge has done this. He has given full opportunity to the petitioner and after hearing him he passed this order setting-aside the previous order of the learned Magistrate. I think the learned sessions. Judge has not done any illegality in passing the order. In the interest of justice he has done so. 7. Before this Court, this is a revision application no doubt but in these peculiar circumstances of this case. I feel that the matter may be thrashed out thoroughly and dispose oil' at this stage. There is no sense in sending the case back to the learned Sessions Judge or the learned Judicial Magistrate for re-hearing and deciding the matter. The reasons for non-appearance of the complainant on 17-12-1975 are not valid and sufficient reasons. I feel that the matter may be thrashed out thoroughly and dispose oil' at this stage. There is no sense in sending the case back to the learned Sessions Judge or the learned Judicial Magistrate for re-hearing and deciding the matter. The reasons for non-appearance of the complainant on 17-12-1975 are not valid and sufficient reasons. The delay by the petitioner in filing the second complaint is not reasonable and under these circumstances, I do not feel to accept the revision petition or admit the revision petition and send back to the lower court. 8. The revision petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage. *******