1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.503 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.504 OF 2007 DSL Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Applicants in (Successor ininterest of both the Datar Switchgear Limited) applications versus Maharashtra State Electricity Board & ors. Respondents Mr.Vaibhav Joglekar i/by M/s.Res Legal for applicant in both the applications. Rahul Sinha i/by Khale Legal Chambers for respondents 1,3,4,5,6 and 7. Rajesh More, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th June 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the revision applicant. The substantive prayer in these revision applications is for quashing and setting aside the order dated 23rd July2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class in exercise of powers under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 2 as "the said Code of 1973"). These revision applications have been filed invoking section 397 of the said Code of 1973. Admittedly these revision applications could have been presented to the Sessions Court. The view of this Court is very consistent. The said view is reflected in the decision of this court in the case of Tejram Mahadeorao Gaikwad Vs. Sunanda Tejram Gaikwad and others (1996-Cri.L.J.172). Paragraph 4 of the said decision reads thus :- "4. First of all the application deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the applicant has not filed the criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, having jurisdiction over the matter. It is undoubtedly true that S. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers jurisdiction of revision concurrently on the Court of Sessions as well as the High Court, but it is equally true that where the jurisdiction is conferred on two courts, the aggrieved party should ordinarily first approach the inferior of the two Courts unless exceptional grounds for taking the matter directly before the superior Court is made out. Since the applicant has come directly to the High Court, though he could have filed the revision before the Sessions Judge and there are no exceptional reasons, the revision application deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. This Court does not encourage filing of revision application under S.397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directly before this Court if it could be challenged in revision before the Sessions Court having jurisdiction of revision over the matter." (Emphasis added) I find that there are no exceptional reasons to entertain these revision applications. 3 2. The learned counsel for the revision applicants seeks time on the ground that there is a prayer added by amendment for initiating an action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Till today this Court has not taken cognizance of the contempt and there is no order passed till today by this Court under Rule 8 read with Rule 9 of the Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994 framed by this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3. In normal course, this Court would have returned the revision applications to the applicants for presentation to the appropriate Sessions Court. However, there is an order passed by this Court on 04th August 2008 directing disposal of these revision applications at the admission stage. 4. Hence, the registry is directed to transfer these revision applications to the appropriate Sessions Court for final disposal. It is made clear that the revision applicants are entitled to file appropriate proceedings praying for an action against respondent no.8 under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and all contentions in that behalf are kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)