Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 18 (MAD)

Venu v. State of Kerala

1986-01-09

K.SREEDHARAN

body1986
ORDER 1. This is a petition purporting to be under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in short the Code, to issue appropriate direction the learned single Judge of this Court to issue notice in Crl.R.P.No.7 of 1986 after restoring the same to file and dispose of the matter according to law to secure the ends of justice. 2. The facts leading to this petition are as follows: The petitioner was charged with offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C.No.485 of 1983 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the II Class, Trichur. The learned Magistrate found him guilty of the said offences, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two months under section 338 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. He challenged the conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court, Trichur. The learned Sessions Judge made over that appeal to the Assistant Sessions Court, Trichur, where it was entertained as Crl. Appeal No.10 of 1984. The Assistant Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. Criminal Revision Petition No.7 of 1986 was filed by the petitioner challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Appellate Court. When that revision came up for admission on 6.1.1986, after hearing the Counsel for the petitioner I dismissed the revision finding that there is no error, illegality, or impropriety in the orders passed by the Courts below. It is against that disposal of the revision petition that this petition is filed, as stated earlier, purporting to be under section 482 of the Code. 3. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, against the decision of the Assistant Sessions Judge he could have preferred a revision under section 397 of the Code before the Sessions Court, Trichur, because the Assistant Sessions Court is a Court of inferior jurisdiction when compared with the Sessions Court. If he had moved the Sessions Court in revision according to the learned Counsel, that Court was bound to admit the revision without any preliminary hearing and in such a situation he would have had an opportunity to argue the entire case on merits referring to the testimony of witness. That opportunity has been lost by his approaching this Court in revision. That opportunity has been lost by his approaching this Court in revision. The learned Counsel further proceeds to argue that in case he had moved the Sessions Court in revision and failed, he would have had another chance to move this Court by resort to section 482 of the Code. I do not find my way to agree with the learned Counsel in any of these submissions. 4. The Sessions Court as also the High Court are having concurrent revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code. Both the Courts are not bound to admit all the revisions. As the High Court hears the Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Revision Petitions, the Sessions Judge is also bound to hear the Counsel and only if the Judge is prima facie satisfied of the existence of any merit in the petition need he issue notice on the revision petition. In other words, no person as of right can invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and ask that Court to issue notice on the revision petition. In this view of the matter I do not think that the petitioner could have had his revision petition admitted by the Sessions Court, Trichur, simply by filing the same before that Court. 5. A person who moves the Sessions Court under section 397 of the Code, is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a second revision. Clause (3) of section 397 is a specific bar to it. Ignoring that bar, I don’t think that a revision petitioner who lost before the Sessions Court is entitled to approach this Court by resort to section 482 of the Code. The powers under section 482 cannot be invoked to defeat the specific bar contained in clause (3) of section 397. The inherent power can only be exercised within the frame-work of the law laid down in the Code and not in violation of it. The exercise of the inherent power under section 482 of the Code the Court has to guard against the passing of an order which would be in conflict with the provision of the Code. In the instant case, the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 397 of the Code. The exercise of the inherent power under section 482 of the Code the Court has to guard against the passing of an order which would be in conflict with the provision of the Code. In the instant case, the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 397 of the Code. After having lost in that attempt he cannot be allowed to move this Court under section 482 contending that the disposal of the revision has resulted in miscarriage of justice. A relief however equitable cannot be passed by exercising the inherent power in contravention of the law. 6. In view of what has been stated above I find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.