Single Judge dismissed a revision petition challenging an order cancelling the petitioner's bail, holding such an order is interlocutory and not revisable. No appeal lies; liberty given to approach appropriate forum.
Revision dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate forum; petitioner not to be apprehended till 10th August 2017.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.07.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
CRL.RC.NO.967 of 2017 in Crl.M.P.No.9045 of 2017
Danial .. Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by,
The Station House Officer,
Lawspet Police Station,
Puducherry.
(Crime No.39/2017) .. Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 &
401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.1195/2017
on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, examine
the correctness, legality or propriety of the findings passed
against the petitioner and to set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sankarasubbu
for Mr.G.Pavendhan
For Respondent : Mr.M.R.Thangavelu
(Addl.Public Prosecutor,Pondicherry)
O R D E R
This Revision has been filed against the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, in Cr.M.P.No.1195 of 2017 in Cr.M.P.Nos.2149 of 2017 and 2151 of 2017 dated 12.07.2017 (on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Puducherry).
i) CDJ 2007 MHC 3447 in the matter of Maya Venkatesan Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Chennai, dated 25.07.2007. In the said judgement the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following paragraph which is reproduced hereunder:
''8-A. Coming to the Revision Cases, with regard to the statement made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the accused has settled Rs.2,48,55,636/-, it has to be pointed out that no plausible material has been produced to substantiate such payment to the contractors. Further, in respect of the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel that in the Revision Cases filed against the order of the Magistrate, cancelling the bail already granted, this Court, by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can very well grant the relief sought for by the petitioner, the objection/contention raised by the learned Government Advocate Viz., these Revisiions filed against the order passed by the Magistrate, which is interlocutory in nature, are not maintainable, cannot be simply brushed aside. Learned Government Advocate, in support of his contention, has relied on a decision of this Court reported in 1980 The Madras Law Journal Reports 375 (Somaram Vs. Jewantharaj Lunia and another), wherein, it has been categorically held that an order of cancellation of bail is an interlocutory order and no revision would lie against such order. I am in entire agreement with the proposition laid down in the above case law of this Court. Both on merits as well as on the ground of maintainability, the Criminal Revision Cases have to be dismissed.''
ii) The second judgment cited by the learned Public Prosecutor is in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.189 of 2015 in the matter of Ponraj Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police, Malapalayam Police Station, Tirunelveli District. In this Judgment the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the following paragraph which reads as under:
''2. This revision came up today for admission. At the outset, this Court raised a
question as to how this revision is maintainable as the impugned order is only an interlocutory order. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner originally filed a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., before the Registry and since the Registry returned the same, he has filed this revision. This submission cannot be appreciated. The learned counsel is not able to show as to how this revision is maintainable, inasmuch as the impugned order is pure and simple an interlocutory order. In Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1977 (4) SCC 551, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even an intermediate order is revisable. The impugned order herein is not even and intermediate order so as to entertain this revision. Thus, this revision is not at all maintainable and hence, the same is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is Closed."
"(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly."
revision case as an appeal, if it is erroneously filed, where appeal alone will lie. The said power conferred on the Court under Section 401 (5) of the Cr.P.C., cannot be stretched upon to the case of this nature in hand, as against the present impugned order there would be no appeal.
Danial
State
R. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
