JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the portion of order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No.220 of 2024 arising out of Jharia P.S. Case No.232 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No.2397 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109/103/61 of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 27 of the Arms Act whereby and whereunder the Revisional Court though set aside the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned ACJM, Dhanbad by which the learned ACJM, Dhanbad issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.; yet directed the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court physically within one month from the date of that order. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned ACJM, Dhanbad in Jharia P.S. Case No.232 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No.2397 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the learned ACJM, Dhanbad has ordered for issuance of proclamation under Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 though incorrectly it has been mentioned as under Section 82 of B.N.S.S., 2023 in page-3 and 9 of this Cr.M.P. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.220 of 2024 challenging the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned ACJM, Dhanbad, whereby and where under the learned ACJM, Dhanbad directed for issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner who is the accused person of the said case being Jharia P.S. Case No.232 of 2024. The learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad considering the fact that the learned ACJM, Dhanbad did not record its subjective satisfaction anywhere to show that there is reason to believe that the revisionists were absconding or concealing themselves, set aside the order dated 28.10.2024 and directed the revisionists to appear before the lower Court within one month physically from the date of its order dated 18.12.2024. As the petitioner who is one of three revisionists of the said Criminal Revision No.220 of 2024 did not appear before the learned ACJM, Dhanbad in compliance to the Revisional Court’s order till 20.02.2025 i.e. more than one month from the order dated 18.12.2024, hence, by recording its satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding, the learned ACJM, Dhanbad ordered for issuance of proclamation under Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 inter alia against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revisional Court has no inherent jurisdiction to issue directions suo motu which is not part of the criminal revision and a Revisional Court is simply to see the legality, proprietary and the correctness of the order under challenge; hence, it is submitted that the direction to the petitioner no.1 to physically appear before the lower Court within one month from passing of the order in the said Criminal Revision No.220 of 2024 is not sustainable in law; as by passing such direction, the Revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that since the purpose of the revision is to review the orders of lower Courts, so from the same, it naturally flows that in appropriate cases where for ends of justice, the Revisional Court thinks it fit that a revision petitioner who is an accused in a case is required to appear before the trial Court, it can do so. It is next submitted that undisputedly the petitioner is an accused of murder of a person; besides committing other offences. It is next submitted that undisputedly, the petitioner knowing pretty well that he is an accused and his presence is required before the Court concerned and the Court concerned has issued NBW against him, the petitioner evaded his arrest and appearance before the Court of law, till the end of the criminal revision and has remained at large by resorting to technicalities and the niceties of law. The only grievance, the petitioner raised before the Revisional Court is that since the learned ACJM, Dhanbad passed an order to issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. without adhering to the settled canons of law, hence, he was deprived of the rights and remedies available to an accused in law. It is then submitted that, the Revisional Court considering the fact that the petitioner is an accused inter alia of the case of murder and he knows pretty well that non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against him, obviously for the ends of justice directed the petitioner to appear before the trial Court physically and the very purpose of vesting the power under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. upon the Revisional Court being to ensure that no illegality committed by sub-ordinate court, remains without being rectified, the Revisional Court has not committed any error and if at all the time period of one month was inadequate for the petitioner, the petitioner could well have approached the Revisional Court itself for extension of time but having not done so. It is further submitted that the petitioner never challenged the said order or direction to appear physically before the trial Court within the stipulated period of 30 days, but remained at large for more than 3 and half months and after availing the luxury and evading his appearance before the police or the Court; without submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, has come to this Court with the ulterior motive of further enhancing the period of avoiding to appear before the trial Court or submitting himself to the investigating officer, hence, such petitioner is certainly does not deserve to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that there cannot be an absolute bar upon the Revisional Court to direct an accused to remain present in the trial Court on particular date when it deems it necessary for the just decision of the case; as such power is derived from the proper authority of the Revisional Court vested under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No doubt, if someone is to go by verbatim of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court situate within its local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, proprietary and correctness of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, so it obviously flows from him it that if the Revisional Court remains unsatisfied with any order passed by the inferior criminal court, the Revisional Court has to set aside the same in order to ensure that justice is done. 7. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains that the petitioner is an accused of a case involving the murder of a person and the FIR was registered on 22.09.2024. The undisputed facts remain that though the petitioner is the named accused person of that case till date he has succeeded in evading his appearance before either the police or the court concerned, his main grievance before the Revisional Court was that without recording any satisfaction, the learned ACJM, Dhanbad ought not have issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. There is no doubt that in order to ensure that justice is done, all the accused persons are expected to submit themselves before the investigating agency or the court, in which the case is pending, so in this backdrop when the Revisional Court set aside the order by which the learned ACJM, Dhanbad issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., and since the petitioner was aware of the fact that there is a non- bailable warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner by the trial Court and the said order by which nonbailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner, was not challenged and was in force at the time of passing of the order in Criminal Revision No.220 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad; under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in directing the petitioner before it to remain physically present before the inferior court within one month, warranting interference of this Court in the said order in exercise of its power under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 8. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.