JUDGMENT 1. - Head learned counsel for the parties. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur dated 26.11.1991 passed in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 1991 are these 3. On December, 15/18, 1987 Shri Vishnu petitioner complained to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bharatpur that Shri Shyam Lal respondent No. 2 with the connivance of the Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Kumher (Respondent No. 3) had encroached upon the land of a public way in Ward No. 6 Kumher The learned Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 133 Cr.PC and on 4.1.1988 passed the conditional order directing removal of the encroachment within 15 days failing which the rule was to be made absolute. Respondent No. 2 opposed the application the ground that he had not encroached upon any land of a public way and whatever construction he had made towards the road side, that was made after obtaining prior permission from Respondent No. 3. After conducting necessary enquiry into the case the learned Magistrate held that the land of a Public way was encroached upon. He accordingly ordered for removal thereof. Respondent No. 2 challenged the order of the learned Magistrate dated 26.12.1990 by preferring a revision application under Section 397 Cr.PC before the Court of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. After hearing the parties and on examining the record of the proceedings before the court of the Magistrate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the revision application stood transferred for disposal, held that since the construction towards the road side as made by the Respondent Shyam Lal after obtaining required permission from Respondent No. 3 it was not a fit case for exercise of powers under Section 133 Cr.PC by the learned Magistrate and the parties may well approach a Civil Court for ascertainment of their legal rights. He accordingly set-aside the order of the Magistrate and accepted the revision petition. 4. Mr. Deepak Goyal, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, raised a preliminary objection to the effect that in view of the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 Cr.PC the petitioner could have filed a revision petition under Section 397 to this Court and hence this petition is not maintainable. Mr. 4. Mr. Deepak Goyal, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, raised a preliminary objection to the effect that in view of the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 Cr.PC the petitioner could have filed a revision petition under Section 397 to this Court and hence this petition is not maintainable. Mr. S.R. Surana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that Section 397 confers concurrent revisional jurisdiction upon this court and the Sessions Judge and since such power under Section 397 Cr.PC has already been exercised by the learned Sessions Judge in this case, the same power cannot again be exercised under that provision The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties call for a study of the provisions contained in Section 397 Cr.PC. 5. Section 397 Cr.PC reads as under "397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior Court and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation:-Ail Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes this sub-section and of Section 398. (2) The power of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them." 6. It may be noted that sub-section (1) of Section 397 confers the power to call for record of inferior Criminal Court upon the High Court and the Sessions Judge. It may be noted that sub-section (1) of Section 397 confers the power to call for record of inferior Criminal Court upon the High Court and the Sessions Judge. This power would be concurrent where the Criminal Court whose record is to be called for is inferior to both the above mentioned Courts. All the Criminal Courts including that of the Session Judge are inferior courts to the High Court. But in so far as the Sessions Judge is concerned, the Courts of all Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, are inferior to his Court, It therefore, follows that the finding recorded, sentences awarded and orders made by any Magistrate and the proceedings held by him are revisable either by the High Court or the Sessions Judge. But in so far as the Court of Sessions Judge is concerned, it is inferior to High Court only. It, therefore, follows that no question of concurrent jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.PC can arise in respect to the findings, sentence or orders, recorded or passed, or regularity of the proceedings held by the Session Judge. In that case, the High Court would have exclusive power to call for and examine the record of any proceeding pertaining to the Court of Sessions Judge. That means that the High Court has revisional jurisdiction in respect to the findings, sentence or order recorded or passed, or proceedings held by the Magistrate as well as by the Sessions Judge. 7. What sub-Section (3) does is that it creates a ban to the entertaining of application under Section 397 by the same person who has once made such application before either of them i.e. the High Court and the Sessions Judge. In other words if a person has made an application under Section 397 before a Sessions Judge but lost his care before him the very same person cannot make a further application before the High Court. But if the Sessions Judge has upset the finding, sentence or order recorded or passed of the proceedings held by the Magistrate, the aggrieved person would not be the same person who had made the application under Section 397 Cr.PC before him. In that case the aggrieved person must have a right to get the finding, sentence or order recorded or passed or proceedings held by the Sessions Judge examined as to their correctness, legality propriety or regularity. In that case the aggrieved person must have a right to get the finding, sentence or order recorded or passed or proceedings held by the Sessions Judge examined as to their correctness, legality propriety or regularity. The ban created by Sub- Section (3), should therefore not come in his way for invoking the revisional power of High Court under Section 397 Cr.PC. It therefore, follows that the words "same person" used in the language of sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.PC necessarily refer to the person who has already made an application under Section 397 Cr.PC before either the High Court or the Sessions Judge. 8. In the instant case since the applicant before me in this petition is not the same person who had made an application under Section 397 Cr.PC before the Sessions Judge, an application under Section 397 by him against the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge would have been entertainable. In view of that position this petition under Section 432 Cr.PC is not maintainable, unless it unfolds a case of abuse of the process of Court or gross injustice to the petitioner. However, with a view to do justice to the parties this petition is directed to be considered as an application under Section 397 Cr.PC. 9. After hearing Mr. Surana at sufficient length, I am of the considered view that the order made by the learned Additional Session Judge is neither incorrect nor illegal and improper. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took note of the fact that the respondent No. 2 had made the construction after obtaining requisite permission from Respondent No. 3. Whether Respondent No. 3 had the power to grant such a permission was a question which could have better been answered by a Civil Court. Primafacie, the order of the Munsif Bharatpur dated 20.9.1990 in Civil Misc. Whether Respondent No. 3 had the power to grant such a permission was a question which could have better been answered by a Civil Court. Primafacie, the order of the Munsif Bharatpur dated 20.9.1990 in Civil Misc. Case No. 46/90, Shyam Lal Sharma v. Tehsildar Kumher approving ownership and possession of respondent No. 2 over the land of temple whose frontage is stated to have been extended by making the disputed construction in the terms of a Chabutra and the decision of Additional Collector, Bharatpur dated 12.10.1988 in appeal No. 3 of 1988 preferred under Section 170(12) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act confirming the permission granted by Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 2 to construct the disputed Chabutra, went a long way to support the correctness and legality of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. There is thus no merit in petitioner's grievance. 10. In the course of arguments Mr. Surana referred to and placed relevance upon the cases of Ladhu Ram v. Municipal Board, Ganga Nagar, 1967 RLW. 255 , Firm Pyare Lal Satpal & Others v. Sant Lal & Ors., AIR 1972 Raj. 103 and Ratna Ram Sahare and Ors. v. State of Orrissa & Ors., AIR 1987 Orissa 194 for the proposition that Public Road includes side land and that such land can neither be let out nor sold by the Municipality though such land vests in it. There is no dispute over the proposition made in these cases. But as has been seen above these questions cannot be gone into and finally decided in criminal proceedings of The nature contemplated by Section 133 Cr.PC. These cases, therefore, afford no help to the petitioner. 11. Even if the case be looked at from the angle of applicability of the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, I find no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is well established on record that whereas the width of the public way infront of the building of the police station is 11 feet, it is 23' in front of the disputed Chabutra. The disputed construction makes no obstruction in the passage of Carts, cars and other vehicles. The respondent No. 2 is found to have raised the construction after obtaining requisite permission from respondent No. 3. There was thus no case at all for initiation of proceedings under Section 133 Cr.PC. The disputed construction makes no obstruction in the passage of Carts, cars and other vehicles. The respondent No. 2 is found to have raised the construction after obtaining requisite permission from respondent No. 3. There was thus no case at all for initiation of proceedings under Section 133 Cr.PC. That being so, there is absolutely no case of either abuse of the process of the Court or failure of justice in the present case. 12. To sum up the present petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******