Skip to content


Chhail Das Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1975CriLJ129
AppellantChhail Das
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
.....passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order.ordermanmohan singh gujral, j.1. this is a revision petition against the order of the additional sessions judge, hissar, dated 11th june, 1974, whereby the petitioner's revision petition for the return of the tractor taken into possession by the police was dismissed.2. the facts leading to this revision petition are that the petitioner's tractor bearing no. pnw 1761 was found in the area of village dhani sila on haryana-rajasthan border carrying 31 bags of maida. as the driver of the tractor did not have any permit to transport the maida to rajasthan a case was registered and the tractor was taken into possession. 'the petitioner who is a registered owner of the tractor then made an application, before the trial magistrate praying that the tractor be given on superdari to him. this.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Manmohan Singh Gujral, J.

1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, dated 11th June, 1974, whereby the petitioner's revision petition for the return of the tractor taken into possession by the police was dismissed.

2. The facts leading to this revision petition are that the petitioner's tractor bearing No. PNW 1761 was found in the area of village Dhani Sila on Haryana-Rajasthan border carrying 31 bags of maida. As the driver of the tractor did not have any permit to transport the maida to Rajasthan a case was registered and the tractor was taken into possession. 'The Petitioner who is a registered owner of the tractor then made an application, before the trial Magistrate praying that the tractor be given on superdari to him. This application was dismissed by order dated 20th May, 1974 and the revision petition against this order was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

3. On behalf of the State a preliminary objection has been raised that the present revision petition is not competent in view of the provisions of Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1974. The relevant provision reads as under:

397 (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.

A bare reading of the above provision would show that where a revision petition has been filed before the Sessions Judge another revision petition by the same person cannot be entertained by the High Court. The reason for this is obvious, as now under Section 399 of the new Code the Sessions Judge has the power to finally dispose of the revision petition and not merely to make a recommendation to the High Court as was the position under the old Code. The position has been further clarified in Sub-section (3) of Section 399 which is as follows:

399(3) . Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court.

From the above it is clear that once the Sessions Judge has passed an order on an application for revision this order is to be treated as final and no second revision petition lies before the High Court.

4. Faced with this situation, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code be exercised and that the tractor be ordered to be returned to the petitioner. This argument is also, without merit. The inherent powers are to be exercised only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the Court or it is necessary to pass orders in order to secure ,he ends of justice. Where Courts have exercised their discretion in a legal man- ner and have found that the tractor could not be given on superdari at this stage I it would not be appropriated to exercise inherent powers in such a situation.

5. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same.


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