JUDGMENT : 1. List revised. 2. None appeared on behalf of the revisionist nor on behalf of the opposite parties. 3. By means of this criminal revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C., the order dated 11.07.1997 passed by the court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Crl. Revision No.204 of 1982, has been assailed. 4. The Criminal Revision No.204 of 1982 was filed before the court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow by M/s Mohan Meakins Breweries Ltd. vs. State & another challenging the order dated 27.09.1982 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Case No.1408 of 1982, under Section 41 (2) of U.P. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (here-in-after referred to as the "Act"). The main grounds to impeach the order dated 27.09.1982 was that the said order is contrary to law as well as on facts and cognizance was taken by the said court otherwise that in accordance with law and that complain filed by the Pollution Board was not maintainable in law for the alleged violation of order passed under Section 33 (2) of the said Act did not occur so as to give cause of action to the Board to file a complaint under Section 41 of the Act, as the Board has already moved an application to the same defect under Section 43 of the Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate which was subject matter of earlier case and, as such, the complaint cannot be filed again and again for the same offence. 5. It had also been submitted before the court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow that the learned court below has mis-construct the order dated 27.08.1982 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4149 of 1981 that compliant under Section 43 of the Act was filed on 05.07.1981 by the Board against the revisionist was itself not maintainable as no offence is alleged to have been committed prior to 31.12.1981, the date fixed by the State Government for filing application for consent under Section 24 (2) of the Act. 6. This revision was firstly rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2018 but on the application being preferred by the revisionist, this Court vide order dated 01.09.2016 was pleased to restore the aforesaid criminal revision to its original number. 7. 6. This revision was firstly rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2018 but on the application being preferred by the revisionist, this Court vide order dated 01.09.2016 was pleased to restore the aforesaid criminal revision to its original number. 7. Perusal of the order-sheet of this revision reveals that the case is being adjourned for so many dates for the reason that no one had appeared on behalf of the revisionist. 8. Today, neither any engagement slip has been given on behalf of the revisionist nor any request for adjournment of the case has been made. Since this revision is of the year 1999 and about 20 years have lapsed from filing this revision, therefore, I am proceeding to decide this case on the basis of records of the lower court and the pleadings of the case. 9. The First Revisional Court i.e. the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow has rightly dealt with the controversy in question and passed well reasoned order dated 11.07.1997, which has been impeached in the instant revision. The First Revision Court has given a categorical findings in respect of the maintainability, which is being reproduced here-in-below:- "First and foremost point is a maintainability of the revision against summoning order on which there is order of the Court of VII Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow passed on 23.05.1983, against which the revision was filed, which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court, therefore, admitted position regarding admissibility of the revision is that revision is maintainable against this summoning order. Jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate was challenged on the ground that since Special Court was constituted for trial of offence under the act the Court of Judicial Magistrate could not proceed with the case Paper on A-35, is copy of order dated 15.02.1985 of the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, by which case was transferred to the court of Sri V.K. Dixit. The revision was preferred against that order in the Hon'ble High Court bearing Revision No 248 of 1982, which was decided on 21.05.1993. The revision was preferred against that order in the Hon'ble High Court bearing Revision No 248 of 1982, which was decided on 21.05.1993. In that revision, the order of Session Judge was set aside and case was sent to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow from the Court of Sri V.K. Dixit and on the basis of this order it was submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in view of this withdrawal of the case from the court of Sri Dixit and sending it to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, jurisdiction of Sri Dixit was withdrawn, hence, second complaint court designated for it. But in the order of Hon'ble High Court, there is no such mention that Sri Dixit had no jurisdiction to entertain this case merely because a case was withdrawn from a particular court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who is a Senior Magistrate in that side of the District, was directed to entertain a particular case was withdrawn, had no jurisdiction as generally if a Magistrate is posted in a district has jurisdiction over entire district, but by local arrangement exercise of that jurisdiction is restricted to a particular case in the district and if a Magistrate exercises its jurisdiction beyond that it may only be an irregularity and it prima-facie cannot be a case of illegality but there is nothing on record to show that any Special Court was constituted and officer was posted in the district at the time when impugned order was passed. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order merely because a complaint was entertain and impugned order was passed by Sri V.K. Dixit." 10. The learned First Revisional Court has considered the factual as well as legal matrix of the issue in detail and while considering the relevant provisions of law on the subject, arrived at the following conclusion, which is well reasoned and speaking. The operative portion there of is being reproduced here-in-below:- "I am inclined to agree with these submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist. The contention of learned representative of the Pollution Board does not carry such weight as against above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist who has also submitted that in original complaint only revisionist Nos.1 and 9 were summoned, hence, action if any could be initiated only against them and not against other revisionists. The contention of learned representative of the Pollution Board does not carry such weight as against above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist who has also submitted that in original complaint only revisionist Nos.1 and 9 were summoned, hence, action if any could be initiated only against them and not against other revisionists. However, learned representative of the Board has submitted that each revisionist is liable for the disobedience of order of the Magistrate, but unless that order is proved to have been conveyed to those persons. They cannot be said to be liable for its disobedience. They were not summoned in the earlier complaint. No knowledge of the said order can be imputed to these persons, it is not a case in which liability can be fastened on the basis of legal provisions in the Act against every employee of the industry who is said to be responsible for faining affluent in the river Gomti. Specific allegation has to be made about responsibility of a particular person for this discharge of affluent in river. I find myself in agreement with this submission of learned counsel for the revisionist also. A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court page 1947 has been relied upon by learned counsel for the revisionists, which lays down that order for taking cognizance may be quashed if no case is made out for any reason including want of sanction. In view of the foregoing discussions, I come to the conclusion that impugned order suffers from illegality and revisionists could not have been summoned on the basis of material on record and also on the basis of legal proposition mentioned above. Hence, summoning of revisionists by impugned order is illegal and the impugned order deserves to be set aside." 11. Therefore, the First Revisional Court was pleased to allow the revision filed by M/s Mohan Meakins Breweries Ltd. & others and the order dated 27.09.1982 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Case No.1408 of 1982 under Section 41 (2) of the Act was set aside. 12. Therefore, the First Revisional Court was pleased to allow the revision filed by M/s Mohan Meakins Breweries Ltd. & others and the order dated 27.09.1982 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Case No.1408 of 1982 under Section 41 (2) of the Act was set aside. 12. A very relevant aspect of the matter is that this Court, while sitting in the revisional jurisdiction and exercising the power of revision, should not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the learned Court below unless there is a case of misreading of evidence or of non consideration of material and admissible evidence or of considering of such evidence which is not admissible at all. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala Versus Puttumanaillath Jathavedan reported in (1999) 2 SCC 452 , has held as under:- "In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice." 13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Admn. reported in (1975) 4 SCC 649 , has held as under:- "The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned additional Sessions Judge was correct. But even so the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse." 14. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Duli Chand (supra) was approved and referred to in a subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 659 , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "The Revisional Court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 401 CrPC. Section 401 CrPC is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of Appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. Section 397 CrPC confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be, "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." It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 CrPC conferring powers of Appellate Court on the Revisional Court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 CrPC, read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power." 15. Considering each facts and circumstances of the case in detail, perusing the relevant record and the pleadings of this revision, I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the order dated 11.07.1997 passed by the court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.204 of 1982. Therefore, the present revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 16. The revision is accordingly dismissed. 17. Therefore, the present revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 16. The revision is accordingly dismissed. 17. Let the paper book of the learned court below be remitted back to the court concerned along with a certified copy of this order within a period of one month from today for necessary compliance.