JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition filed by petitioner Deen Dayal accused is directed against the order dated July 23rd, 1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (E.C. Act Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 11/1982 whereby he had reversed the order dated 8th of March, 1990 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal case No. 425/1988. 2. The brief facts relating to this revision petition are that one Damodarlal, non-petitioner No. 2, filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Magistrate in which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the 10 accused-petitioner Deen Dayal for the offence under Sections 379 and 427 IPC. Pre-charge evidence was recorded and after hearing charge arguments, the learned Magistrate discharged the accused petitioner Deen Dayal from the offence under Sections 379 and 427 IPC. Against that order, the complainant non-petitioner Damodar Lal filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, (E.C. Act Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was ultimately allowed by the learned revisional court by the order impugned in this revision petition and ordered to frame charge against the accused petitioner Deen Dayal for the offence under Sections 379 and 427 IPC. Against this order, this revision petition is filed 3. It is argued on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the impugned order is absolutely illegal. It is further contended that in the matter like the present one, provisions of section 398 Cr.PC. are attracted. It is then contended that by a bare reading of Section 398 CrPC it will be clear that the learned revisional court could not pass the order that charge for the offence under Section 379 and 427 IPC would be framed by the trial court. It is argued that at the most the learned revisional court could order for further inquiry but the learned revisional court has not done so and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. It is also argued that there was no evidence at all available on the record for framing charge against the accused petitioner and the learned Magistrate was right in discharging the accused petitioner from the above mentioned offences and the impugned order passed by the revisional court is absolutely illegal. 4. It is also argued that there was no evidence at all available on the record for framing charge against the accused petitioner and the learned Magistrate was right in discharging the accused petitioner from the above mentioned offences and the impugned order passed by the revisional court is absolutely illegal. 4. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Rajesh Mootha, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant non-petitioner that the order passed by the learned revisional court being absolutely legal requires no interference by this Court and thus, the revision petition should be dismissed. 5. From a perusal of the order of the Magistrate and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the learned Magistrate discharged the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 379 and 427 IPC in the complaint case under Section 245 Cr.P.C. and against this order of discharge, which was passed under Section 245 Cr PC. a revision petition was filed by the complainant non-petitioner before the revisional court which was allowed by the learned revisional court by the order impugned in the instant revision petition. In this way, in the matter provisions of Section 398 Cr.PC. are most relevant. 6. The relevant portion of Section 398 Cr.P.C. runs as follows : 398. Power to order inquiry - On examining any record under section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under section 203 or sub-section (4) of section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged. 7. A bare reading of Section 398 Cr.P.C. it is clear that at the most the learned revisional court could have ordered for further inquiry. It is a settled law that the Sessions Judge in revisional jurisdiction in the matter of discharge, cannot order that charge be framed against the accused. I am of the view that the learned revisional court was not empowered to direct the Magistrate to frame charges against the accused petitioner Deen Dayal. It is a settled law that the Sessions Judge in revisional jurisdiction in the matter of discharge, cannot order that charge be framed against the accused. I am of the view that the learned revisional court was not empowered to direct the Magistrate to frame charges against the accused petitioner Deen Dayal. I am further of the view, that by passing the order that charge for the offence under sections 379 and 427 IPC be framed against the accused, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has committed illegality and jurisdictional error and under these circumstances, this revision petition deserves to succeed. 8. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.7.93 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge & Special Judge (E.C. Act Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge with the as direction to rehear the matter after affording opportunities of hearing to the parties and after hearing both the parties, he should decide the matter afresh. As the matter is old one, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is directed to decide the matter as early as possible preferably within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Office is directed to send the record of so the case and a copy of this order to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge immediately.Revision allowed. *******