ORDER
Dixit, J.
1. The facts of this reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Bhind are that Samaram commenced proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. against Vidhyaram and some other persons in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Mehgaon. In those proceedings the Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered the delivery of a crop which had been attached to Samaram, Against this order Vidhyaram presented a revision petition before the District Magistrate Bhind. The learned District Magistrate transferred the revision petition to the Additional District Magistrate Bhind for disposal according to law. The Additional District Magistrate rejected the revision petition after hearing the parties. The disposal of the revision petition by the Additional District Magistrate came to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge of Bhind during the course of his inspection. He has now made this reference for setting aside the decision of the Additional District Magistrate Bhind on the ground that under Section 435, Criminal P. C. the Additional District Magistrate is not empowered to exercise revisional powers and that, therefore, the decision given by him was without jurisdiction,
2. I do not find myself able to accept this reference. I have already pointed out in the case of – Kaluram v. State of Madhya Bharat AIR 1951 Madh B 67 (A) that the question whether with reference to a particular section of Criminal P. C., the term “District Magistrate” can be held to include “an Additional District Magistrate” must be decided with reference to the provisions of that particular section. The learned Sessions Judge has not said in the reference as to how the expression “District Magistrate” as used in Section 435, Criminal P. C. cannot be said to include an “Additional District Magistrate” I find nothing in the wording of Section 435 to incline me to hold that in Section 435 the term “District Magistrate” does not include an Additional District Magistrate. As under Section 10 (2) all Additional Magistrates in this State have been invested by the Government with all the powers of a District Magistrate, an Additional District Magistrate is competent to dispose of a revision petition under Section 435, Criminal P. C., in the absence of anything in the wording of Section 435 itself to show that the revisional powers under Section 435 can be exercised by the District Magistrates alone.
3. I realise that when every judicial First Class Magistrate in this State has been appointed as an Additional District Magistrate, the exercise of the revisional powers by Additional District Magistrates may at times lead to incongruous results. But this is inevitable in a scheme to carry out the separation of the judiciary and executive with the aid of the provisions, as they are, or the Criminal P. C. The remedy for avoiding such a situation lies in aggrieved party approaching the Sessions Judge instead of the District Magistrate for the exercise of the powers under Section 435, Criminal P. C. With these observations I reject this reference.
