2009 Supreme(SC) 494

2009(2) Supreme 526
Supreme Court of india
Tarun Chatterjee and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Sethuraman — Appellant
versus
Rajamanickam — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 486-487 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2688-89 of 2005)
Decided on : 18-03-2009

Important Point
Revision against interlocutory orders is clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 200, 91, 311 – Complaint filed by appellant alleging that a cheque signed by respondent and given for returning amount of Rs.2 lakhs, which was a loan, was bounced and inspite of notice given thereafter, accused respondent failed to return the money – A Trial ensued on basis of complaint – Applications filed by respondent seeking directions to produce Bank Pass Books, Income Tax Accounts and L.D.S. deposit receipts of the appellant, as also for recalling him for cross-examination – Order passed by Court rejecting applications made by respondent/accused – Revision Petitions thereagainst – Allowed by High Court – Appeals thereagainst – Very strangely, High Court did not even issue notice to appellant/complainant, on spacious ground that production of the documents, which was sought for by the accused, would cause no prejudice to the appellant/complainant – This logic was incomprehensible – After all, if the documents in possession of the appellant/complainant, which were his personal documents, sought for by the accused and production of which was rejected by Trial Court, and which were ordered to be produced by the High Court, at least a hearing should have been given to the appellant/complainant – He could have shown, firstly, that no such documents existed or that there was no basis for the production of those documents, particularly, in view of the fact that he was not even cross-examined in respect of those documents – Apart from that what was not realized was that order passed by Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. – Hence, both orders, i.e., one on 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, Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction – Impugned judgment being clearly incorrect in law held liable to be set aside – Appeals allowed.(Paras 3 & 4)

       Facts of the Case :

       1.A Complaint was filed by appellant herein in the instant case alleging that a cheque signed by respondent and given for returning amount of Rs.2 lakhs, which was a loan, was bounced and inspite of notice given thereafter, accused respondent failed to return the money. A Trial ensued on basis of complaint. Applications were filed by respondent seeking directions to produce Bank Pass Books, Income Tax Accounts and L.D.S. deposit receipts of the appellant, as also for recalling him for cross-examination. An Order was passed by Court rejecting applications made by respondent/accused. Revision Petitions thereagainst were allowed by High Court.

       2.Present appeals have been filed against said orders of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       Very strangely, High Court did not even issue notice to appellant/complainant, on spacious ground that production of the documents, which was sought for by the accused, would cause no prejudice to the appellant/complainant. This logic was incomprehensible. After all, if the documents in possession of the appellant/complainant, which were his personal documents, sought for by the accused and production of which was rejected by Trial Court, and which were ordered to be produced by the High Court, at least a hearing should have been given to the appellant/complainant. Apart from that what was not realized was that order passed by Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Hence, both orders, i.e., one on 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, Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. Impugned judgment being clearly incorrect in law held liable to be set aside. Appeals allowed.

       Result : Appeals allowed.