1. This petition is directed against an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Nanded on 26th September, 1980 in Criminal Miscellaneous Applications No. 129 of 1980, which was directed against an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in Chapter Case No. 420/80 for the detention of the petitioner under sub-section (3) of Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. as amended by Maharashtra Ordinance No. 7 of 1980. From this it is clear that the order is passed by the Magistrate in pursuance of the powers vested in him under the Cri.P.C. Sub-section (3) of Section 151 as it stands today provides for a representation to be made by the person detained against the order of the Magistrate to the Court of Session. On this representation the Court of Session passes an order. The latter order also therefore is passed, under the Cr.P.C.
2. We are informed by Mr. Paranjpe, who appears for the petitioner, and Mr. Kotwal who appears for the State, that this matter was kept for admission before a learned single Judge taking revision applications. It was mentioned by the Public Prosecutor that against the order which we have mentioned above no revision application can lie and only a petition asking for a writ of habeas corpus would lie. The learned single Judge has directed to place this petition before us accordingly.
3. We have heard both Mr. Paranjpe and the learned Public Prosecutor and we are satisfied that a revision application does lie against an order passed under Section 151 as amended by the Maharashtra Ordinance No. 7 of 1980. We have already indicated sufficiently the nature of the orders passed which are made in this petition. We may straightway mention that these orders are passed in the proceedings under the Cr.P.C. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that provisions of Section 401 dealing with revisional powers of the High Court are attracted by these orders. Both the orders passed in proceedings under this Code are passed by the Court and not by any 'persona designata'.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, after reading the provisions of the amended Section 151 sought to impress upon us that since a provision has been made for representation against the order of detention passed by the Magistrate a revision application does not lie. We are unable to agree with this admission. It is one thing to say that a revision application should not be entertained because there is a provision for representation; it is quite another thing to say that revision application does not lie at all. An order passed under Section 151 does not cease to be an order passed under the Code merely because it is in proceedings relating to detention. These proceedings are nevertheless proceedings within the meaning of Section 401 of the Code.
5. It was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the revisional powers under Section 401 can be exercised only when such powers can be exercised in an appeal. Since there is no appeal against the order passed under Section 151, the powers of an appellate Court cannot be exercised. We do not think that the revisional powers are restricted to the powers under the sections mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 401. They are only by why of illustration. Any order passed in any proceedings under the Cr.P.C., except when it is specifically barred such as an interlocutory order, is revisable by the High Court under Section 401. In our opinion the revision application is maintainable. It shall be placed before the learned single Judge dealing with revisions.
6. Petition allowed.