Single judge held that criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable against interlocutory orders passed on applications under Sections 91 and 311 Cr.P.C., relying on Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions to be closed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
Crl.R.C. No.2513 of 2015
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), challenging the order dated 22.09.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1103 of 2015 in M.C. No.223 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad.
TSC,J CRL.R.C.No_2513_2015
2
“4. Secondly, what was not realized was that the
order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent/accused and the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the appellant/complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders, i.e., one on the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed.”
1 2009 (1) ALD (Crl.) 871 (SC)
TSC,J CRL.R.C.No_2513_2015
3
Cr.P.C. The facts of the case on hand are almost identical to the facts of the case cited supra.
_________________________
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
20 th October, 2016.
siva
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal revision petition is maintainable against orders passed by the trial court on a petition filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
Whether interlocutory orders under Sections 91 and 311 Cr.P.C. are liable to be challenged in revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sethuraman v. RajamanickamRelied on¶12
Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam 2009 (1) ALD (Crl.) 871 (SC)
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
State of Telangana
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
T. Sunil Chowdary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
