IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.64 of 2008 PRINCE KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 22.09.2008 This revision application has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2006 of the learned Sessions Judge passed in Crl. Appeal No.371 of 2006, whereby the order dated 23.06.2006 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Patna City, as passed in J.J.Board Case No.148 of 2006 refusing bail to the revisionist-petitioner was refused. Along with this revision application the order dated 23.04.2007 as passed in Crl. Revision No.262 of 2007 (Annexure-1) of this Court has been filed which shows that the petitioner had earlier filed that Crl. Revision No.262 of 2007 before this Court against the same impugned order dated 12.12.2006 of the learned Sessions Judge and by the said order dated 23.04.2007 that revision (Crl. Revision No.262 of 2007) was dismissed by this Court. Thus, it is clear that the revisionist-petitioner has approached this Court in revision for the second time against the same impugned order dated 12.12.2006 of the 2 learned Sessions Judge, Patna, the earlier Crl. Revision No.262 of 2007 having already been dismissed earlier by this Court. Therefore, a question has arisen whether the petitioner has an authority or locus-standi to file a second revision before this Court against the same impugned order of the Court-below. This revision has also been filed earlier under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred to as the „Act‟). This Act is a special enactment. Under Section 12 of the Act there is provision for hearing of bail matter and passing of bail orders with regard to the Juvenile before the Board. Thereafter the next provision with regard to the bail matter of a Juvenile is under Section 52 of the Act, which provides for filing an appeal before the Sessions Judge against the order of bail including order of acquittal or conviction as passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Sub-section (3) of Section 52 provides that no second appeal shall lie from any order of the Court of Sessions as passed in appeal under Section 52 3 of the Act. Further Section 53 of the Act provides for revision before this Court against the order of the Sessions Judge as passed in appeal under Section 52 of the Act. Thus, there is a set procedure for filing of appeal and revision against any order including the bail order as passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. The Act being a Special Act provides for filing of revision before this Court against an order passed lby learned Sessions Judge under his appellate jurisdiction passed under Section 52 of the Act. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that second revision under Section 53 of the Act is not permissible against the same appellate order of the Court-below as passed under Section 52 of the Act is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions under Section 53 of the Act which are as follows: “53. Revision. – The High Court may, at any time, either of its own motion or on an application received in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any 4 competent authority or Court of Session has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit: Provided that the High Court shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” Referring the words „at anytime‟ in Section 53 as above, learned counsel submitted that this expression empowers the Court to hear revision application at any time which according to the learned counsel would mean more than one time against the same impugned order including an order with regard to refusal of bail. But on careful perusal and consideration of the words „at any time‟ it is gathered that this word simply connotes the exercise of revisional power at any time after passing of the impugned order of the Court-below and this expression cannot be construed to mean that it applies the exercise of revisional powers for occasions more than one against the 5 same impugned order. In such view of the matters, I feel that second revision under Section 53 of the Act of the impugned order dated 12.12.2006 is not entertainable. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed as not maintainable. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)