The court dismissed a Criminal Revision Case challenging an order dismissing a plea to recall a witness. Relying on Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, the judge held that revision is not maintainable against interlocutory orders made under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the matter is treated as non-maintainable.
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 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.951 OF 2015
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 28.04.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.1384 of 2015 in C.C.No.410 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry.
2
Rajamanickam1 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held at para No.4 as follows:
“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), 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)
3
this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.
________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
Date: 19.10.2016 Ivd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is maintainable against interlocutory orders dismissing aSection 311 application.
Whether the principle in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam bars revision against orders dismissing applications for recalling witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Whether the instant criminal revision case is maintainable given the principles laid down in the cited precedent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sethuraman v. RajamanickamReferred¶8
Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, 2009 (1) ALD (Crl.) 871 (SC)
5 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Third Respondent
Second Respondent
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
