HC Can Order Transfer Of Revision Petition To Sessions Court To Avoid A Conflict Of Jurisdiction: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court held that a High Court can exercise its inherent powers to order the transfer of a revision petition to the sessions court in order to avoid a conflict of jurisdiction.
The Court transferred a revision petition filed by the complainant (revision petitioner) challenging the sentence imposed by the trial court on the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The Court noted that an appeal by the accused challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court was already pending before the Sessions Court, while the sentence was under challenge before the High Court at the instance of the complainant.
A Single Bench of Justice K. Babu observed, “Whenever any application for revision is transferred to the High Court, the Court shall deal with the same as if it were an application duly made before itself. The High Court may also transfer the revision made to it to the Sessions Court. Whenever an application for revision is transferred by the High Court to the Sessions Court, the Sessions Judge shall deal with the same as if it were an application duly made before himself.”
Advocate Enoch David Simon Joel appeared for the revision petitioner, while Advocate Arunkumar A represented the respondent.
The complainant argued that the sentence was not adequate as the trial court only imposed a meagre sentence without taking into account the gravity of the offence.
The High Court considered the submission advanced by the revision petitioner that since the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence was pending before the Sessions Court, the revision petition filed seeking enhancement of the sentence should also be transferred to the Sessions Court for disposal.
“As both the High Court and the Sessions Court possess revisional power, it may happen that in a joint trial, some accused may come in revision before the High Court and some before the Sessions Court. The mandate of Section 402 is that a conflict of jurisdiction is avoided by reposing in the High Court, the power initially to decide whether all of them should be decided by itself or all of them should be decided by the Sessions Court, keeping in view the importance of the questions involved and the general convenience of the parties,” the Court remarked.
The Court pointed out that as per Section 402 of the Cr.PC, which is pari materia with Section 443 of the BNSS, the High Court has the power to transfer the revision pending before the Sessions Court to the High Court for consideration and disposal of both matters together. “The High Court may also direct the application for revision to be transferred to the Sessions Court,” it stated.
However, the Court clarified, “Section 402 of the Code deals with a different situation. Any person convicted on a trial held by a Magistrate of the First Class may appeal to the Court of Session under Section 374(3) of the Code. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the accused is to be decided by the Sessions Court.”
Consequently, the Court held, “If the revision petition preferred by the complainant in the High Court is left to be decided here, it may lead to a conflict of decisions. In order to avoid a conflict of jurisdiction, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to order transfer of the revision to the Sessions Court.”
Accordingly, the High Court transferred the revision petition.
Cause Title: Ashok Kumar v. Hassainar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:76716)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Enoch David Simon Joel, S. Sreedev, Rony Jose, Leo Lukose, Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry, Derick Mathai Saji and Karan Scaria Abraham
Respondents: Advocates Arunkumar A, S.Shyam Kumar and Sachin George Aramban; Public Prosecutor G Sudheer
