Patna High CourtCR. MISC./27394/2013dismissed

Raj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2016-04-21Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27394 of 2013 ====================================================== Raj Kumar Singh, son of Ramashish Singh, resident of village Padadiya, P.S. Ghorasahan, District East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar No. III For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 21-04-2016 Heard Sri Sunil Kumar No. III, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. The petitioner, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 26.4.2013 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari. By the said order the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the Cr. Revision No. 8 of 2013 which was preferred by the petitioner against the order of cognizance dated 8.10.

2012 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana at Motihari, East Champaran in Ghora-Sahan P.S. Case No. 87 of 2012 . By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27394 of 2013 (2) dt.21-04-2016 2/2 offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is made out.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that in the garb of a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, virtually the petitioner has filed second revision, which is prohibited under Section 397 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Once the order of cognizance was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in revision, normally a second petition though filed under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure can be termed as second revision, which is barred under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C.

I do not find any ground to entertain the petition. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T