Revision petition challenged an interlocutory order imposing conditions while staying sentence in a pending appeal against conviction. The High Court held that Section 397(2) Cr.PC bars revision against interlocutory orders and dismissed the petition as not maintainable, reserving liberty to challenge otherwise.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:39326 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1132 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI SUBODH T.B. S/O.BALASUBRAMANYALU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.814 100 FEET RING ROAD BSK III STAGE HOSAKEREHALLI BENGALURU-560 085
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI VINOD N., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR.RAGHUPATHI REDDY S/O.LATE RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.61, SOUTH END ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.PC. (UNDER SECTION 438 READ WITH SECTION 442 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER ON SENTENCE DATED 01.06.2023 PASSED IN CC.NO.12707/2020 BY XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU AND THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2023 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.1667/2023 BY XVI ACMM, BENGALURU CITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:39326 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
This matter is called-out for the third time in the day at 2.46 p.m. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Even on the previous date of hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ORDER
The operation of judgment of conviction of sentence passed by learned XVI ACMM,
NC: 2024:KHC:39326 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2024
Bengaluru, dated 01.06.2023 in CC.No.12707/2020 is hereby stayed till next date of hearing on the following conditions:
xxxxxx"
NC: 2024:KHC:39326 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2024
397(2) of Cr.PC. which reads as under:
"397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision
(1) xxxxx
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) xxxxx"
The above said provision clearly states that the
powers of revision conferred under Section 397 of Cr.PC. shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
On perusal of the prayer sought and the order i.e. questioned before this Court, it is apparently clear that the order i.e. challenged is on the interlocutory application in IA.No.1/2023 in Crl.A.No.1667/2023, to which the revisional power of this Court under Section 397(2) of Cr.PC. cannot be entertained.
NC: 2024:KHC:39326 CRL.RP No. 1132 of 2024
Under the circumstance, I pass the following:
ORDER
ii) However, the liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to
law;
iii) Ordered accordingly.
Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE
LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a revision under Section 397 Cr.PC lies against an interlocutory order passed on an IA in a pending criminal appeal.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI SUBODH T.B. S/O. BALASUBRAMANYALU
MR. RAGHUPATHI REDDY S/O. LATE RAMASWAMY
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
