S.402 CrPC Pertains To High Court's Power To Transfer Revision Cases, Not Applicable When Appeal Is Pending Before Sessions Court: Kerala High Court

Justice K Babu thus invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 to transfer the revision pending before it to the Sessions Court where the convict had preferred an appeal, to avoid conflict of jurisdiction.

The Court said,

“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. 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.”

The revision petitioner is the complainant who filed a complaint alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act against the first respondent. The Trial Court convicted the first respondent to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and pay a fine of four lakh fifty thousand rupees.

The first respondent preferred an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence which is pending before the Sessions Court. Meanwhile, the complainant has preferred revision petition for enhancement of sentence before the High Court.

The revision petitioner, relying upon Section 402 of the CrPC, sought for transfer of his revision petition to the Sessions Court, as the respondent's criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence is currently pending there.

Section 402 of CrPC reposes power to the High Court to decide whether revision has to be decided by the High Court itself or the Sessions Court to avoid conflict of jurisdiction. Section 402 of the CrPC pertains to the power of the High Court to transfer revision cases pending before the Sessions Court to the High Court. It also provides power to the High Court to transfer revision cases pending before it to the Sessions Court.

The High Court shall take a decision based on the convenience of the parties and the importance of the question involved.

“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”, added the Court.

The Court noted that the conviction and sentence are challenged before the Sessions Court by the accused and the revision petition of the complainant is before the High Court.

The Court thus held that Section 402 was not applicable and invoked its inherent powers to transfer the revision to the Sessions Court to avoid a conflict of jurisdiction.

As such, to avoid the conflict of jurisdiction, the Court transferred the revision petition pending before it to the Sessions Court/

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates Enoch David Simon Joel, S.Sreedev, Rony Jose, Leo Lukose, Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry, Derick Mathai Saji, Karan Scaria Abraham

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Arunkumar A, S.Shyam Kumar, Sachin George Aramban, Public Prosecutor G Sudheer

Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet No. 380 Of 2024

Case Title: Ashok Kumar v Hassainar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 642