V.D. Misra, J.
(1) Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 concurrent powers of revision were conferred on the Sessions Judge and the High Court by section 435. The Sessions Judge could finally accept the revision and direct the Magistrate to make further enquiry into any complaint dismissed by him or order the commitment of an accused improperly discharged under sections 436 and 437. In other matters the Sessions Judge was required to make a recommendation to the High Court under section 438 if he found that order passed by the Magistrate should be reversed or modified. The effect of sections 435 to 439 was that a person could either invoke the powers of revision of the Sessions Judge and thereafter invoke the powers of the High Court or could straightaway invoke the powers of revision of the High Court, In these circumstances the High Court framed rule 3 of Chapter 1-A(b) of the High Court Rules and Orders Volume V. directing persons to invoke the revisional powers of the Sessions Judge first before coming to the High Court. This rule reads thus :
'3.As regards petitions under section 436 and section 439. Criminal Procedure Code, the Deputy Registrar will not receive petitions for revision of orders of original Courts in non-appealable cases, unless the applicant files with his petition a copy of the order of the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate, as the case may be, to show that he has applied to one or the other and his petition has been refused. The Sessions Judge or District Magistrate ran release a prisoner on bail or suspend a sentence pending a reference to the High Court.'
(2) The advantages of this rule were two-fold. It prevented the High Court from being overburdened with petitions for revision, since some reliefs could finally be granted by the Sessions Judge. Where the Sessions Judge either refused to grant the relief or make a recommendation to the High Court, the latter had the benefit of the opinion of the Session's Judge. It may be noticed that this restriction did not absolutely take away the right of a person to move the High Court in revision.
(3) However, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'present Code') has brought vital changes. The powers of revision of the Sessions Judge arc made concurrent with the powers of the High Court in all inalters. The Sessions Judge can now finally dispose of all petitions of revisions. Sub-section (1) of section 397 of the present Code like section 435 of the old Code gives the powers of revision to the Sessions Judge and the High Court. However, subsection (3) of this section is new. It reads thus :
'IFan 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.'
(4) The reason for this sub-section is not far to seek. Section 399 of the present Code enables the Sessions Judge to exercise all the powers of revision vested in the High Court under section 401 and thus a revision petition can be finally decided either by granting the relief asked for or by dismissing it. Unlike section 438 of the old Code the Sessions Judge need not make any recommendation to the High Court. The scheme of sections 397 to 401 of the present Code relating to powers of revision of the two courts docs not restrict the right of any person from approaching the High Court in the first instance without invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge. In these circumstances the said rule 3 of the High Court Rules and Orders restricting the right of a person to approach the High Court in the first instance would completely debar persons from invoking the revisional powers of the High Court. The High Court has no power to take away completely the right given by law. The rule has, thereforee, to be struck down as ultra-vires and void. I am fortified in this view by a Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Puvvula Abbulu v. The State Station House Officer. Law & Order, Iii Town Police Vijayawada, , which struck down a similar rule of practice on the ground of inconsistencies to the scheme of the present Code.