# the same order of the Magistrates should be heard by the same court. All the Presiding

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 43/Ve-84/Admn
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1989-07-20
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 43/Ve-84/Admn
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-same-order-of-the-magistrates-should-be-heard-by-the-same-court-all-the-163648
- **Pages:** 1

## Text

377
Henceforth criminal revisions filed before the Sessions Judges against one and
the same order of the Magistrates should be heard by the same court. All the Presiding
Officers of the courts concerned should ensure strict compliance.
C.L. No. 43/Ve-84/Admn. (G) dated 20th July, 1989
If a revision is filed in the High Court under section 397(i) Cr.P.C. it must be
mentioned therein that no revision has been filed before the Sessions Judge against the
same order and if a revision is filed before the Sessions Judge under section 397(i),
Cr.P.C., it must be mentioned therein that no revision has been filed in the High Court
against the same order.
C. L. No. 50/2007Admin (G): Dated: 13.12.2007.

It has been observed by the Hon'ble Court that in many cases , the Criminal
revisions may be decided without the compulsion of issuing notices to the opposite parties
and the revisional power should be exercised when it is shown that there is legal bar
against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of the charge or the
facts as stated in F.I.R. even if taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety, do
not constitute offense which the accused has been charged with . In that situation even
without issuing notice to the opposite party the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction
may make the disposal of that revision.

Therefore, in continuation of the earlier issued G.L.No. 15/X dated 20th
September, 1951, I am directed to say that in above noted circumstances without issuing
notice to the opposite party the Court concerned may proceed to decide the revision and
summary disposal of the revision may also be made in accordance with the directions
given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2000 S.C. 522 Kanti Bhadra Shah and another
Vs. State of West Bengal and AIR 2002 S.C. 107 Munna Devi Vs. State of Rasjasthan.

Therefore, I am directed to request you to kindly bring the contents of this Circular
Letter to all the Judicial Officer under your administrative control for their guidance and
Strict compliance.
57.
DISPOSAL OF REFERENCE UNDER THE INDIAN RAILWAYS ACT,

1890 AND THE RAILWAYS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES TAXATION) ACT,

1941
G. L. No. 4/180-1(2) dated 26th March, 1945
The Government of India in Express G.G.O.no. F-III-44/TX-17(17), dated the
9th December, 1944, express the intention that cases referred to judicial officers under
Government of India, Railway Department (Railway Board) notification no. F-42./TX17-16, dated the 11th January, 1944, should not be treated as ordinary judicial
proceedings before them but that judicial officers should function as quasi judicial
tribunals and observe the rules of natural justice which would not necessarily be the
same as those by which ordinary cases are dealt with and that the provisions of the Court
Fees Act, 1870, should not be applied to in these cases.
58. DISPOSAL OF GOODS SUBJECT TO EXCISE DUTIES
C.L. No. 92/VII-f-38 dated 9th November, 1956