Skip to content


Ram Lal Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1973CriLJ1670; 1973MPLJ376
AppellantRam Lal Sharma
RespondentState of Madhya Pradesh
Cases Referred and Shaukat Hussain v. Sheodayal Saksena.
Excerpt:
.....236) (supra) the court clearly ruled that an application for revision against an order of the district magistrate, transferring a criminal case from the file of one magistrate to another under section 528 (2) of the code, should not be entertained by the high court directly, in view of rule 15. in air1958mp350 (supra) the court ruled that ordinarily the high court should not interfere when a party does not exhaust hie remedy by applying to the sessions court, no doubt, rule 15 is a rule of practice, but the word 'ordinarily' is not there......under section 528 (2) of the code, should not be entertained by the high court directly, in view of rule 15. in : air1958mp350 (supra) the court ruled that ordinarily the high court should not interfere when a party does not exhaust hie remedy by applying to the sessions court, no doubt, rule 15 is a rule of practice, but the word 'ordinarily' is not there. even assuming that the powers of the high court under section 439 of the code are not fettered, by any hard and fast rule, as stated in that case, the observance of a rule of practice does not lie in its breach. even on the dictum laid down in shaukat hussain's case : air1958mp350 (supra), there exists no ground for interference. admittedly, the petitioner has already moved the sessions court under section 438 of the code for.....
Judgment:
ORDER

A.P. Sen, J.

1. This is a revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Shri Ramlal Sharma challenging the legality and propriety of an order purported to have been made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hoshangabad. under Section 144 of the Code.

2. A preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the State that the revision should not be entertained by the High Court directly in view of the provisions of Rule 15. Chapter IV of the High Court Rules more so. because the petitioner has already filed a similar revision before the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, under Section 438, of the Code. The objection is well founded and must be sustained. Rule 15 reads as follows:

No petition for revision of an original order of a Magistrate shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a copy of the order of the District Magistrate or Sessions Judge concerned refusing to refer the case to the High Court.

The language of the rule is clear and explicit. It will be noticed that the language of the rule is in a negative form. It is a settled rule of construction that negative words are clearly prohibitory. (See: Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edn. pp. 262 and 263). The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, placed reliance on Nathuram v. Crown, ILR (1941) Nag 606 : (AIR 1941 Nag 316): Haii Abdus Subhan v. Gajanan, ILR (1943) Nag 637 : (AIR 1943 Nag 236), and Shaukat Hussain v. Sheodayal Saksena. : AIR1958MP350 . These authorities do not lay down anv contrary proposition. In ILR (1941) Nag 606 : (AIR 1941 Nag 316) (supra), the question was whether an application for revision of an order passed by a criminal Court of appeal mav be made direct to the High Court. That is an entirely different matter. It is clear from Rule 15 that such a revision lies to the High Court directly. There appears to be no Provision for applications for revision of appellate orders. In ILR (1943) Nag 637 : (AIR 1943 Nas 236) (supra) the Court clearly ruled that an application for revision against an order of the District Magistrate, transferring a criminal case from the file of one Magistrate to another under Section 528 (2) of the Code, should not be entertained by the High Court directly, in view of Rule 15. In : AIR1958MP350 (supra) the Court ruled that ordinarily the High Court should not interfere when a party does not exhaust hie remedy by applying to the Sessions Court, No doubt, Rule 15 is a rule of practice, but the word 'ordinarily' is not there. Even assuming that the powers of the High Court under Section 439 of the Code are not fettered, by any hard and fast rule, as stated in that case, the observance of a rule of Practice does not lie in its breach. Even on the dictum laid down in Shaukat Hussain's case : AIR1958MP350 (supra), there exists no ground for interference. Admittedly, the petitioner has already moved the Sessions Court under Section 438 of the Code for making a reference to the Hteh Court. That beine so, the learned Sessions Judge has session over the matter. In view of this, this Court would decline to interfere in revision.

3. In the result, the revision is rejected as premature. Let the records of the case be despatched to the Court of Sessions forthwith.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //