1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.444 OF 2009. Uttam S/o Fula Bagul ... Petitioner. Versus Sau.Asha W/o Uttam Bagul and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.I.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 17.08.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 9.4.2009, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Criminal Revision Application No.219/2005, whereby he directed recording of further evidence in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 2 2. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the background facts giving rise to the present petition. Suffice it to say that the petitioner is husband of the Respondent No.1 and father of the Respondent No.2 as per the averments of the latters. The Respondent Nos.l and 2 filed an application claiming separate maintenance allowance U/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. from the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate, held that the Respondent No.1 was not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner nor had any sexual relationship with him. The learned Judicial Magistrate, therefore, dismissed the application filed U/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred the Criminal Revision Application No.219/2005 against such dismissal of their claim in the proceedings bearing Cri.M.A.No.313/2001. 3. It appears that during course of hearing of the Revision Application, the learned Sessions Judge, held that DNA test may throw light on the paternity of the applicant No.2. The learned Sessions Judge directed that since no 3 details about the date of birth of the Respondent No.2 and other details were placed on record, it would be appropriate to direct recording of further evidence by utilising the provisions of Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Heard. 5. The question to be considered is whether the revisional jurisdiction could be invoked so as to direct the parties to adduce further evidence. Mr.Deshmukh, submits that the scope of revision is limited one and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge should not have directed recording of further evidence vide the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order, it emerges that the learned Sessions Judge was under the impression that he could utilise the powers available U/s 391 of the Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the powers available U/s 401 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked in such a matter. 6. At this juncture, it is worthy to notice that there was no application filed by 4 the Respondents so as to direct recording of further evidence. There appears a fundamental mistake committed by the Revisional Court in this behalf. The Revision Application filed by a private party would be governed by provisions of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. In such a case, the duty of the Revisional Court is to examine whether the order under the Revision Application is legal, proper and correct. The expression "for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality and propriety of any finding, sentence or order" would indicate that the revisional jurisdiction is required to be exercised in order to supervise work of the trial Court. The Sessions Judge may examine the record in order to satisfy himself whether the order rendered by the Magistrate is correct, legal and proper. In such a case, the power to call for record is with a specific purpose. The jurisdiction available U/s 399 of the Cr.P.C. is, however, on different footings. It is only when a learned Sessions Judge suo-motu decides to exercise powers U/s 399 of the Cr.P.C. then seldom he may exercise any of the powers which 5 which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, when the revision application is preferred by a private party then the jurisdiction is available only U/s 397 of the Cr.P.C. Section 397 does not provide for use of powers by the Sessions Court as available U/s 401(1) of the Cr.P.C. to the High Court. The Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to direct recording of evidence in the proceedings particularly when the Revision Application is initiated by a private party. Under these circumstances, the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge is quite unsustainable and illegal. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The Revisional Court is directed to expeditiously hear the petition on merits and to decide the same. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp44409