1. These four revision applications can be disposed of by this common judgment since a common point of law arises in all the said cases and the said cases arise out of a common incident.
2. It is not necessary to state the facts of these cases in detail. Suffice it to say that the accused in all these cases were prosecuted by the complainants-petitioners for offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 road with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainants in all the four petitions are the landlords of certain agricultural lands growing sugar-cane crops. The accused respondents are the Officers of a Co-operative Sugar Factory known as Penchaganga Cooperative Sugar Factory. On the basis of an award passed by the Officer on Special Duty under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1900, the accused entered into the lands of the complainants to cut the sugar-cane crops growing therein. It was the case of the complainants that there was no such award and the accused had illegally entered their lands for cutting the sugar-cane crops. On this basis, the landlords of the said agricultural lands who are the complainants in the four cases, launched a prosecution against the accused and filed four different cases against them. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 20-10-1973 passed separately in all the four cases, after recording evidence produced by the complainants in all the four cases, discharged the accused in all the said four cases on the ground that no offences as alleged by the complainants were proved against them. Against the said order of discharge, the complainants preferred four revision petitions to the Sessions Court, Kolhapur, The Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, by his separate orders dated 24-12-1974 passed in all the four revision petitions dismissed the revision applications and confirmed the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate. These four revision petitions have been preferred against the said order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in the four revision petitions confirming the said order of discharge.
3. The short question of law which arises in all these four petitions is whether the present revision petitions filed by the petitioners complainants in this Court are maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 397 (3) of the new Criminal Procedure Code viz. the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Although the offences complained of were allegedly committed by the accused, and cognizance was taken thereof by the learned Judicial Magistrate, before the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came into force, it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in its decision reported in (1975) 77 Bom LR 458 (Suraj Prakash Sethi v. R.K. Gurnani) that revision application filed in this Court against orders in such proceedings will be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 i. e. the new Code. As such it is the provisions of Section 397 of the new Code which will apply to the present revision petitions. Sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the new Coda bars a second revision application to this Court by the same party when the party had made a revision application to the Sessions Court. In view of the admitted position that these are petitions by the complainants against the orders of the Sessions Judge dismissing their revision petitions, the bar enacted by the said provisions will apply to all the four revision petitions. The four revision petitions are therefore clearly not maintainable, end this Court cannot entertain them In this view of the matter, all the said four revision petitions will have to be dismissed on the said short ground. All the four revision applications are therefore dismissed mid the rule granted in all of them is discharged.