SURYA PRASAD, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 5. 3. 1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor in criminal case No. 403 of 1991 State v. Shamim Akhtar summoning the accused applicant under section 498a I. P. C. and Dowry Act The learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that this revision should be transferred to the Sessions Court w here a revision preferred by one of the parties is still pending that revision be transferred from that court to the Honble Court for the purpose of disposing that revision along with this revision by the Honble Court itself. For this purpose he has drawn the attention of the Court to section 402 of Cr. P. C. which reads as follows: 402-Power of High Court to withdraw or transfer revision cases: Whenever one or more persons convicted at the same trial makes or make application to a High Court for revision and any other person convicted at the same trial makes an application to the Sessions Judge for revision, the High Court, shall decide, having regard to the general convenience of the parties and the importance of the questions involved, which of the two courts should finally dispose of the applications for revision and when the High Court decides that all the applications for revision should be disposed of by itself, the High Court shall direct that the applications for revision pending before the Sessions Judge be transferred to itself and where the High Court decides that it is not necessary for it to dispose of the applications for revision, it shall direct that the applications for revision made to it be transferred to the Sessions Judge. ( 2 ) WHENEVER any application for revision is transferred to the High Court that court shall deal with the same as if it were an application duly made before itself. ( 3 ) WHENEVER any application for revision is transferred to the Sessions Judge that Judge shall deal with the same as if it were an application dully made before himself. ( 3 ) WHENEVER any application for revision is transferred to the Sessions Judge that Judge shall deal with the same as if it were an application dully made before himself. ( 4 ) WHERE an application for revision is transferred by the High Court to the Sessions Judge, no further application for revision shall lie to the High Court or any other Court at the instance of the person or persons whose applications for revision have been disposed of by the Sessions Judge. The trial has not yet commenced. Only charge sheet in the case to which this revision relates has been submitted in the trial court. Therefore, section 402 Cr. P. C. does not apply. The contention of the learned counsel otherwise than this has no substance. The learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued that no prima facie case has been made out against the revisionist in the case in which she has been summoned. The scope of a revision is very limited. The court concerned does not appear to have committed any material irregularity illegality, impropriety or miscarriage of justice in passing the impugned order. This is the reason why the learned counsel for the revisionist has not been able to point out in the course of argument any of the aforesaid points. In the result this revision has no substance and is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .