(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; 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 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 Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
Tag: CrPC 397(3) – Second Revision is Not Permissible
Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs Moti Ram and Ors. on 20 November, 1992
Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Second revision is barred under 397(3) CrPC.
From Para 16,
Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs Moti Ram and Ors. on 20 November, 1992The bare reading of Sub-Section 3 would how that it does not curtail the remedy but only bars or abrogate the remedy. It curtails the remedy second time. The power of the High Court and the Court of Sessions, so far as revision is concerned, are concurrent. The revisionist has choice to File revision directly in the High Court or in the Sessions Court. Having availed the remedy by filing revision before the Sessions Judge he cannot be permitted to avail second chance, the bar of Sub Section (3) will come in his way. V.R. Krishna lyer, J. in the case of Raj Kapoor Vs. State (Delhi Administration) observed that “In our constitutional order, fragrant with social,justice broader consideration of final relief must govern the juridical process save where legislature interdict plainly forbids that, course”. (underlining is mine). In Raj Kapoor’s case though Supreme Court was not cat tea upon to deal with Sub-Section (3), it was only dealing with the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, particularly where the petitioner instead of invoking the revisional power under Section 39 invoked the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, particularly where the petitioner instead of invoking the revisional power under Section 39 invoked the inherent power of the High Court. It was in this background the above observations were made which will show that the Court was not unmindful of the fact that whenever legislature interdict plainly or statute bar the availing of remedy in that case, the High Court cannot resort to its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to circumvent the prohibition laid down in the Code.
Dinakar Vs Krishnamurthy on 12 November, 2009
This case involves a retired DGP of Karnataka state regarding a murder of one Murugan who along with 2 others broke into DGP’s house on a fateful date. The petitioner Dinakar, on behalf of the said Muragun, has tried to file a case, but in vain. Hence he approached the Home Minister of Karnataka and NHRC ar Delhi. On this the DGP was aggrieved and filed a defamation case on Dinkar. Dinakar filed many applications at various fora praying that the defamation case be dismissed and in this regard he challenged the jurisdiction and power of taking cognizance of case by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which was brought before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the instant case.
There were interesting arguments and counter-arguments supported by judgments of various High Courts and their Division Benches and also Hon’ble Apex Court. Read on.
Dinakar Vs Krishnamurthy on 12 November, 2009
