Case Note & Summary
Reserve Bank of India, a statutory corporation, filed a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court against the order dated 3 August 2009 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Dadar, Mumbai in Criminal Case No. 59/SW/2009. The Magistrate had refused to issue process against accused Nos. 2 to 10 and 12 (who are the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Directors, Expert Director, and Special Adviser of Memon Co-operative Bank) in a complaint alleging false statements in banking returns under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, while issuing process against the bank itself and its Chief Executive Officer. The complaint was based on inspections revealing that the bank had suffered substantial losses contrary to the profits shown in its balance sheets for the years ending March 2006, 2007 and 2008. Before the High Court, the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision, contending that the applicant should have first approached the Sessions Court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that no exceptional grounds existed to entertain the revision directly. The applicant argued that concurrent revisional jurisdiction vests in both the High Court and the Sessions Court, and that after the 1973 CrPC, a party cannot file a second revision before the High Court if the Sessions Court rejects it, so the party must be allowed to approach the High Court directly. The Court considered the arguments and the cited precedents, but the available text ends before a final decision is recorded.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision Jurisdiction - Section 397 CrPC - Preliminary Objection - The High Court examined whether a revision against a Magistrate's order refusing process must first be filed before the Sessions Court. The respondents relied on single-judge decisions holding that ordinarily the inferior court should be approached first unless exceptional grounds exist; the applicant cited a Division Bench decision in Madhavlal Pittie (1975) emphasizing that denying direct access to the High Court would permanently deprive a party of revisional relief given the bar on second revisions. As of the available text, the Court had not yet ruled on the objection. (Paras 5-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revision application filed directly before the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court is maintainable under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Law Points
- Concurrent revisional jurisdiction of High Court and Sessions Court under Section 397 CrPC
- 1973
- requirement to ordinarily approach inferior court first unless exceptional grounds exist
- bar on second revision application under Section 397(3) CrPC after a revision is decided by Sessions Court
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (08) 72
Criminal Revision Application No. 634 of 2009
Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani a/w. Mr. Gaurav Belosay, Sandeep Aole, Nikhil S.Davare h/f. Udwadia and Udeshi, for the Applicant; Shri Shirish Gupte i/b. Ms.Zakira Shaikh, for the respondent Nos. 1 to 10; Ms. S.V.Gajare, APP, for the respondent No.11 - State
Shri Imran Ashraf Furniturewala, Shri Umar Abubaker Merchant, Shri Shehzad Zaveri, Shri Anwar Shakoor Zunzunia, Shri Nazim Ashraf Furniturewala, Shri Khizer Ahmed, Dr. Atta Khatri, Shri Rafique Yusuf Ingaria, Shri Shashi Kant Sharma, Mr. Irfan Ashraf Furniturewala, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against order of Metropolitan Magistrate refusing to issue process against certain accused in a complaint under Banking Regulation Act.
Remedy Sought
Applicant (Reserve Bank of India) sought to set aside the Magistrate's order dated 3.8.2009 and issue process against all accused.
Filing Reason
The Magistrate only issued process against the bank and its CEO, but refused against other office-bearers, finding them not responsible for false returns.
Previous Decisions
Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Dadar, Mumbai, by order dated 3.8.2009 in Criminal Case No. 59/SW/2009, issued process against accused No.1 (bank) and accused No.11 (CEO), but dismissed complaint against accused Nos.2-10 and 12 (Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Directors, Expert Director, Special Adviser).
Issues
Whether the revision application filed directly before the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court is maintainable under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Gupte for respondents argued that the revision should have been filed first before the Sessions Court, and that no exceptional grounds existed to entertain it directly; he relied on several single-judge decisions of the Bombay High Court which held that the aggrieved party must ordinarily approach the inferior court first.
Mr. Jethmalani for the applicant contended that the High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, and the party may choose either forum; he relied on the Division Bench decision in Madhavlal Pittie which emphasized that after the 1973 CrPC, a party cannot file a second revision before the High Court if the Sessions Court rejects it, so the party must be permitted to approach the High Court directly to avoid being permanently deprived of that remedy.
Judgment Excerpts
First of all the application deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the applicant has not filed the criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, having jurisdiction over the matter. It is undoubtedly true that S. 397 of the Code of criminal Procedure confers jurisdiction of revision concurrently on the Court of Sessions as well as the High Court, but it is equally true that where the jurisdiction is conferred on two courts, the aggrieved party should ordinarily first approach the inferior of the two Courts unless exceptional grounds for taking the matter directly before the superior Court is made out.
Reverting to s. 397, it appears to us that the High Court as well as the Sessions Judge have been given co-ordinate powers to call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior criminal Court. It may, no doubt, be said that a party has no right of revision as such, but any party can move a Court, whether High Court or a Sessions Judge, for calling for the record of any proceedings of any inferior Court and examine the same, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. It, therefore, appears on the plain reading of this section that it is either the High Court or the Sessions Judge which may by itself or himself suo motu call for and examine the record, or any irregularity or illegality in the proceedings may be brought to the notice of the High Court or the Sessions Judge by any person including a party to a proceeding before inferior criminal Court. However, once any of these two Courts have entertained the case then the other Court will refrain from taking any action in the same matter, as provided by sub-s. (3) of s. 397.
Procedural History
The Reserve Bank of India filed a complaint before Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Dadar, Mumbai, alleging that Memon Co-operative Bank and its office-bearers committed offences under Section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act by willfully making false statements in balance sheets and returns. The Magistrate by order dated 3.8.2009 issued process only against the bank and its CEO, but refused process against other accused (Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Directors, Expert Director, Special Adviser). RBI then filed the present revision application in the High Court directly.
Acts & Sections
- Banking Regulation Act, 1949: 29, 30, 31, 46
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401
- Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002:
