JUDGMENT 1. -The question that cropped up for consideration in this revision is whether a private person has locus standi in a police case to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Cr.P.C.) 2. This question emerges in the wake of circumstances set out below : (i) The complainant petitioner (for short the complainant) instituted FIR with the Police Station Bani Park Jaipur on August 20, 1994 against the accused non-petitioner No.2 (for short the accused). The police registered case No. 274/94 against the accused under sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC. and after investigation submitted charge sheet. Learned trial court vide its order dated July 25, 1996 framed charges against the accused under sections 420, 467, and 468 IPC. (ii) The accused thereafter assailed the order by filing revision. Learned Sessions Judge Jaipur City vide its order dated July 25, 1996 allowed the revision and quashed the order of the trial court. (iii) Against this order of the learned Sessions Judge that the present action for filing the revision has been resorted to by the complainant. 3. Mr. R.P Garg, learned counsel appearing for the accused raised preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of the revision. It was contended that a private person has no locus standi in a police case to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Section 397/401 Cr.PC. Reliance was placed on Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1966 SC 911 ) Ganga Ram and Amichand Ahir v. Krishna Kumar and another (1997 (2) WLC (Raj.) 248) . 4. By referring the words used in sub-section (3) of Sections 397 and 401 Cr.PC., Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, on the other hand, vehemently canvassed that apart from the express power under section 397 (1), the High Court has been invested with suo motu power under Section 401 Cr.P.C. to exercise revisional powers. Placing reliance on Pratap v. State of U.P and others ( 1973 (3) SCC 690 ) , Mr, Sharma, learned counsel contended that even a private person is competent to invoke sections 397/401 Cr.PC. 5. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the case law cited at the Bar. 6. It will be useful at this juncture to examine the relevant statutory provisions. Section 397 Cr.PC. 5. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the case law cited at the Bar. 6. It will be useful at this juncture to examine the relevant statutory provisions. Section 397 Cr.PC. relates to the revisional powers of the High Court and Sessions Court. This section 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 proceedings 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. - All 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 of this sub-section and of section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, 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 Session Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them." Section 401 Cr.PC. sets out the powers of revision which a High Court has in the case of any proceeding, the record of which has been called for by itself or which have been reported for orders or which otherwise comes to its knowledge. It reads thus - "401. High Court's powers of revision. sets out the powers of revision which a High Court has in the case of any proceeding, the record of which has been called for by itself or which have been reported for orders or which otherwise comes to its knowledge. It reads thus - "401. High Court's powers of revision. - (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by Section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392. (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. (4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies there to and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly." 7. The term person' incorporated in sub-section (3) of section 397 has not been defined in Cr.PC. Even in section 11 of the Indian Penal Code, 'person' has not been defined in a technical or narrow sense. According to Section 11 CPC. "the word person' includes any company or association or body of persons whether incorporated or not." This is hardly a definition, it seems to be only an indication of the intention of Legislature to use the word person' in a fairly wide sense so as to include even artificial persons. According to Section 11 CPC. "the word person' includes any company or association or body of persons whether incorporated or not." This is hardly a definition, it seems to be only an indication of the intention of Legislature to use the word person' in a fairly wide sense so as to include even artificial persons. The word "person" is defined in the "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary" in two ways : firstly, it is defined as "an individual human being" or "a man, woman or child" and secondly, as "the living body of a human being." 8. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the provisions contained in section 435 of the old Criminal procedure Code in Thakur Ram v. the State of Bihar ( AIR 1966 SC 911 ) . It was held that, "In a case which has proceeded on a police report a private party has no locus standi. No doubt, the terms of section 435 are very wide and he can even take up the matter suo motu. The criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who according to that party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the state which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book." 9. Aforesaid observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court were relied upon by this Court in Ganga Ram v. Prabhu Dayal (1987 RCC 81) where it was indicated that a private party has no locus standi to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the sessions court/High Court in a case proceeded on a police report. 10. In Amichand v. Krishna Kumar ( 1997 (2) WLC 248 ) this Court observed that complainant as a private party was not competent to maintain revision against order of framing charge particularly for the reason that the State, which is a prosecutor in the case, has also challenged the order made by the learned Sessions Judge under sections 227/228 Cr.PC. 11. 11. But Bench comprised of Hon'ble three Judges of the Supreme Court in Pratap v. State of U P and others ( 1973 (3) SCC 690 ) while considering section 439 of the old Criminal Procedure Code, propounded that (para-15) - "The power under section 439 Cr.PC. is one which the High Court can exercise suo motu and all that a person filing a revision petition under that section does it to draw the court's attention to an illegal, improper or incorrect finding, sentence or order of a subordinate court. The fact that in this case the brother of the deceased filed revision petition and the Government did not do so does not affect the powers of High Court under that section. 12. Section 401 Cr.PC. correspondence to section 439 of the old Cr.PC. 1898. The Law Commission in its 41st Report observed thus in Re: S. 439 - "32.12. S. 439 empowers to revise any order made by a criminal court, and to do so not only if moved by a party or by the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate, but also on its own motion irrespective of how the order may have come to its notice...."(S.O.R. Gaz. of India, 10.12.1970 Pt. II, S. 2 Extra P1309 (1327-28). 13. In Rinzing Choda v. State and others (1978 Cr.L.J., 1270 Sikkim) it was held that in a case which has proceeded on a police report the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference. 14. In U. Saul Dkhar v. State of Meghalaya (1982 Cr.L.J. 457 (Gauhati) it was observed that a revision petition against order of Magistrate giving consent to withdrawal from prosecution is maintainable at the instance of informant even if it is a case charge sheeted by police. A matter of criminal revision can be initiated on knowledge from any source. 15. Krishan Kant v. Dilip Kumar and others (1984 Cr.L.J. 1003) it was indicated that where clear illegality or injustice comes to the notice of the High Court by whatever means, suo motu jurisdiction of the High Court is always available to correct such mistakes. A criminal revision can be instituted on knowledge from any source i.e. through media reports or upon an information given by a stranger. In such matters, the question of locus standi does not come into play. 16. A criminal revision can be instituted on knowledge from any source i.e. through media reports or upon an information given by a stranger. In such matters, the question of locus standi does not come into play. 16. In 1986 Cr.L.J. 963 Andhra) it was laid down that a private informant has a right to invoke revisional jurisdiction of High Court in appropriate cases where an order of court has occasioned grave failure of justice. 17. In AIR Calcutta 319) it was held that where an order of discharge has the effect of operating to the detriment of a third person, the latter has a right to apply in revision against such order. 18. Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in AIR 1933 All. 678 propounded that the application referred to in sub section (3) of section 397 is an application by a party to the proceeding e.g. the accused, the Government or the complainant. An application by third person will be treated as supplying information to the court on which it may act. 19. In AIR 1939 Calcutta 220, it was observed that the High Court has a course jurisdiction to interfere with orders of discharge even at the instance of private prosecution where it is improper. 20. In AIR 1952 H.R 74 it was held that a revision by private complainant against the order of discharge is competent. 21. In Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar (supra) the Supreme Court in the year 1966 while interpreting section 435 of old Cr.PC. (section 397 of new Cr.PC.) observed that a private party has no locus standi in a police case to file revision as criminal is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance whereas in Pratap v. State of U.P (supra) in the year 1973 the Supreme Court while considering section 439 of old Cr.PC. (section 401 of new Cr.PC.) propounded that High Court can exercise the powers of revision suo motu and all that a person filing revision petition, does it to draw the court's attention towards finding of subordinate court. 22. A conjoint reading of sub-section (3) of section 397 and sub-section (1) of section 401 demonstrates that any person can file revision petition and the High Court can exercise powers of revision in respect of any order of the subordinate court, by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge. 22. A conjoint reading of sub-section (3) of section 397 and sub-section (1) of section 401 demonstrates that any person can file revision petition and the High Court can exercise powers of revision in respect of any order of the subordinate court, by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge. Thus it is evident that a private person can draw the attention of the High Court towards finding of the subordinate court by filing revision. In Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar (supra) provisions contained in section 439 of old Cr.P.C. (section 401 of New Cr.P.C.) were not in consideration before their Lordship of the Supreme Court. 23. Thus, following the ratio of Pratap v. State of U.P (supra) and looking to the intention of legislature expressed in Law Commission's 41st Report (supra) I hold that a private party can file revision and draw the attention of the High Court towards an illegal, improper or incorrect finding of the subordinate criminal court. The object of revisional jurisdiction is to confer upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct miscarriage of justice, arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedures and similar infirmities. There is a difference between the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 397 (1) and that of under section 401 (1). The powers under section 397 (1) though may be exercised suo motu but are limited to proceedings, the record of which has been called for by the High Court itself whereas under section 401(1) the High Court has the wider powers to exercise revisional jurisdiction in cases which otherwise comes to its knowledge by whatever means. 24. In view of discussions made hereinabove, I overrule the preliminary objection raised by Mr. R.P Garg, learned counsel and hold that instant revision is maintainable. 25. Now I proceed to examine the facts of the case. Sum and substance of allegation against the accused is that he obtained a sum of Rs. 15000/- from the complainant by issuing a forged allotment letter of a plot and thus cheated him and committed offence under sections 420, 467, 468 IPC. The accused produced as many as ten documents before the trial court to substantiate his contention that no offence was committed by him. 15000/- from the complainant by issuing a forged allotment letter of a plot and thus cheated him and committed offence under sections 420, 467, 468 IPC. The accused produced as many as ten documents before the trial court to substantiate his contention that no offence was committed by him. After considering the charge sheet and the documents of the accused the learned trial court passed a detailed order directing that charges under sections 420, 467 and 468 be framed against the accused. . While deciding the revision the learned Sessions Judge observed that charge sheet was filed only on the basis of statements of complainant and his wife and no proper investigation was conducted. From the statements of the complainant and his wife no prima facie case under section 420, 467 and 468 IPC was made out. Learned Sessions Judge interpreted the photostat copy of Patta' and observed that Kamlesh Bansal wife of the complainant got possession of the plot and put her signatures. While deciding revision preferred against the order of framing the charges, the revisional court should consider the broad aspects and any close and critical scrutiny of disputed facts should not have been gone into by it. 26. In State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and others ( 1997 (4) SCC 393 ) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus : "At the stage of sections 227 and 228 the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence." Their Lordships further observed - "What the court has to consider at the stage of framing of the charge is whether the version of the person complaining together with his/her explanation is prima facie believable or not. It was, therefore, not proper for the High Court to seek independent corroboration at that stage and to quash the charge and discharge the accused in absence thereof. The High Court was wholly wrong in discarding the material placed before the court as false and discharging the accused on that ground." 27. In the case on hand the learned Sessions Judge discarded the statements of the complainant and his wife in absence of independent corroboration and disbelieved the documents filed with the charge sheet. The High Court was wholly wrong in discarding the material placed before the court as false and discharging the accused on that ground." 27. In the case on hand the learned Sessions Judge discarded the statements of the complainant and his wife in absence of independent corroboration and disbelieved the documents filed with the charge sheet. The veracity of photostat copies of the documents field by the accused can be tested during the trial and unless they are proved they can not be made basis of discharging the accused. Learned Trial court evaluated the material and documents on record and rightly observed that the material disclosed prima facie case against the accused. Learned Sessions Judge committed grave error in setting aside the order of the trial court. 28. Resultantly, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated November 28, 1996 of the learned Sessions Judge Jaipur City is set aside and the order dated July 25, 1996 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4 Jaipur City stands confirmed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on Feb. 23,1998 for seeking further instructions. *******