JUDGMENT 1. - Preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Public Prosecutor that the jurisdiction of this Court as well as of the Sessions Judge is concurrent so far as the matters under sub-section 2 of Section 439 Cr. P.C. are concerned. The petitioner, therefore, could have moved a similar application before the learned Sessions Judge, instead of coming straight to this Court. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is a case of Special nature, where this Court should entertain this application notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner could have moved the Sessions Judge, more so when this Court has issued notices and the entire matter is at large before this. In support of his contention that if this Court has issued a notice then this Court will deal with the application on merit, the learned counsel has referred to the decision of 1974 WLN 302. Mr. S.K. Gupta learned counsel for the accused persons has contended that it will not be a healthy practice if this Court does not entertains the application under Section 439 (2) Cr. P.C directly in matters arising out of orders of subordinate Court other than the Sessions Court. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Advocate Mr. Sharma contents that if the jurisdiction of this Court as well of the Sessions Court is concurrent then a party must first go to the Sessions Court, In support of his contention he has referred to a full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Shri Rammurti, AIR 1959 Andh. P. 377 . It was a case where the question arose as to whether in case of concurrent jurisdiction of High Court and Sessions Court and District Magistrate this Court can entertain the revision directly? It was held that as a rule of practice, ordinarily an application for revision shall not be entertained directly by this Court against orders passed by the Subordinate Courts, unless the party concerned first approached the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate as the case may be. 4. I am of the opinion that an application under Section 439(2) is filed and notices have been issued to the other side if the other side appears and takes preliminary objection, the question arises for the Court to decide as to what shall be a healthy practice in such matters. 4. I am of the opinion that an application under Section 439(2) is filed and notices have been issued to the other side if the other side appears and takes preliminary objection, the question arises for the Court to decide as to what shall be a healthy practice in such matters. The Court can and should' decline to interfere in an application under section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. if the same has been made without first going to the Sessions Court, which court has concurrent jurisdiction in such matters. This Court has already important cases the decide and is not able to cope with these cases which are instituted and the arrears arc going on rising from one to one. 5. In the case where a party can first approach the Sessions Court the Court generally will not interfere directly under section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to first move to the Sessions Court. With the observations this Court declines to entertain the application under section 439(2)B Cr.P.C. directly.Application dismissed. *******