Delhi High Court Rejects Attempt to Challenge Interlocutory Trial Court Order in NDPS Case

In a stern reminder against the misuse of judicial process, the High Court of Delhi has dismissed a petition filed by an accused in an NDPS Act case, labeling the plea as "totally frivolous." The court affirmed that revisional powers cannot be invoked to bypass statutory restrictions on challenging interlocutory orders.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The petitioner, Ability Dodzi @ Chinazom Ability, currently facing charges under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, had approached the High Court to challenge an order dated July 11, 2025, passed by the Trial Court. The petitioner sought to have the order set aside and requested a directive to preserve CCTV footage from the Maidan Garhi Police Station and the FRRO office for a specific period in June 2025.

The challenged Trial Court order did not decide any substantive rights; rather, it simply summoned the Investigating Officer (IO) to appear in person with a report concerning the preservation of CCTV footage.

Arguments on Trial

Representing the petitioner, the counsel argued for the necessity of preserving the CCTV footage to establish his client's defense.

Conversely, the state, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), pointed out that the FRRO was not made a party to the proceedings and that the Sunlight Colony Police Station—the respondent impleaded by the petitioner—held no administrative control over the CCTV surveillance at the Maidan Garhi Police Station. Furthermore, the state emphasized that the application for CCTV preservation was already pending before the Trial Court, awaiting the arrival of the IO.

Legal Analysis: The Bar on Revisional Powers

Justice Girish Kathpalia meticulously reviewed the scope of the petition. The court noted that the petitioner failed to dispute the nature of the trial court's order, which was purely interlocutory.

The judgment highlights the clear prohibition under Section 438(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which bars the invocation of revisional powers against interlocutory orders. The Court underscored that what a statute explicitly forbids cannot be achieved through the "backdoor" application of inherent powers. Because the Trial Court had already seized the matter and scheduled the IO's appearance to address the preservation request, there was no vacuum of justice necessitating the High Court’s intervention.

Key Observations

The Court clarified the legal boundaries regarding appellate and revisional intervention:

• On the nature of the order: "As is obvious, the only direction in the impugned order is as regards summoning the Investigating Officer afresh to appear in person with the report. No substantive order has been passed by the Trial Court."
• On the prohibition of powers: "The provision under Section 438(2) of BNSS explicitly prohibits exercise of revisional powers against the interlocutory orders. What is prohibited by law cannot be done by invoking inherent powers, as that would be allowing backdoor entry to the relief claimed."
• On the lack of grounds for intervention: "The application for preservation of CCTV footage being already pending before the Trial Court, there is no occasion for this court to interfere and pass any order on this issue."

Decision and Implications

Finding no merit in the request and noting that the underlying application was already proceeding in the lower court, the High Court dismissed the petition. To deter similar practices, the Court imposed costs of ₹20,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC).

This ruling serves as a vital precedent for defense counsel, reminding the legal fraternity that procedural tactics designed to bypass trial court processes—particularly concerning interlocutory staging—will not find favor with higher courts and may invite financial penalties.