Back
1995 Supreme(Cal) 8
High Court Of Calcutta
NRIPENDRA KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA
DEBENDRA NATH DAS - Appellant
Versus
BIBHUTI PAUL - Respondent
Criminal Revision 1977 Of 1994
Decided On : 01/04/1995
AMITABHA GANGULY, Sanat Chowdhury, SUBROTO BOSE
A single revision challenging more than one order is permissible as per Rule 118 of the Criminal Rules and Orders, Vol. I.
Headnote:
Revision - Criminal Procedure Code - The court allowed the revision challenging the refusal of admission of the criminal motion, holding that a single revision is permissible challenging more than one order, as contemplated by Rule 118 of the Criminal Rules and Orders, Vol. I.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant petitioner challenged the refusal of admission of the criminal motion in limine, as the learned Sessions Judge refused admission on the ground that challenging two orders by one revisional application is not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a single revision challenging more than one order is permissible as per Rule 118 of the Criminal Rules and Orders, Vol. I, and set aside the impugned order, directing the learned Sessions Judge to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
Issues: The issue was whether a single revision challenging more than one order is permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 118 of the Criminal Rules and Orders, Vol. I, and held that a single revision challenging more than one order is permissible, as the rule contemplates a revision against any finding or sentence, and speaks of a revision against orders.
Final Decision: The revisional application was allowed, and the learned Sessions Judge was directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the order.
( 1 ) BY this revision the complainant petitioner has challenged Order No. 2 dated 8-7-94 passed in Criminal Motion No. 126 of 1994 by the District and Sessions Judge, Howrah, whereby the learned Sessions Judge refused admission of the criminal motion in limine on the ground that by one revisional application two orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Howrah, being Order No. 52 dated 22-4-94 and Order No. 53 dated 30-4-94 passed in Case No. 2412c/89 having been challenged the said revisional application is not maintainable.
( 2 ) THE brief background of the case is that in course of the trial some witnesses of the complainant, though summoned and appeared before the Court in answer to the summons could not be examined due to certain reasons. Prayer was made by the complainant for calling for the said witnesses as Court witnesses, and in the alternative, issuing fresh process upon the said witnesses. Adjournment was prayed by the complainant but the prayer for adjournment was refused by the orders dated 22-4-94 and 30-4-94. The learned Magistrate, after closing evidence for the complainant, fixed the case for examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The orders are similar in nature. The petitioner herein by one application challenged the said orders in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah and the same was registered there as Criminal Motion No. 126 of 1994. The learned Sessions Judge fixed the case for admission on 8-7-94 and on 8-7-94 dismissed the revisional application on the grounds as stated above.
( 3 ) MR. Subroto Bose, learned Advocate appearing for the complainant petitioner, contended, infer alia, that there is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 preventing challenging of two orders by one revisional application. Mr. Bose, in support of his argument, referred to Rule 118 of the Criminal Rules and Orders, Vol. I, which contemplates such a position and permits one revision challenging more than one order.
( 4 ) MR. Sanat Choudhri, learned Advocate, appears on behalf of the private opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6, and files his Power in Court, which may be kept on record. Mr. Chaudhuri, on the other hand, contended that a single revision is not maintainable challenging more than one order and as such the revisional application of the complainant petitioner herein suffers from illegality and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the same in limine.
( 5 ) HEARD the submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties and considered the materials on record.
( 6 ) SECTION 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for revision before the High Court or the Court of Sessions. Section 397 does not speak whether a revision challenging more than one order is permissible or not. But Rule 118 of the Criminal Rules and Orders, Vol. I, contemplates that a single revision challenging more than one order is permissible. Rule 118 reads as follows :-" (1) If any person makes any application for revision of any finding, sentence or orders, recorded or passed by any inferior Criminal Courts, before the Sessions Judge, he shall file along with his application certified copies of orders or judgment against which revision is sought. (2) The certified copies of judgments and orders filed under sub-rule (1) shall be retained with the revisional records. "
( 7 ) FROM a plain reading of the said Rule, it appears that a revision of any finding, sentence or orders, recorded or passed by any inferior Criminal Courts, before the Sessions Judge, is permissible subject to the condition that the revision shall have to be filed along with the certified copies of the judgments and orders against which the revision is sought. Sub-rule (2) also provides for certified copies of judgments and orders which shall be retained with the revisional records. Though the Rule contemplates a revision against any finding or sentence, it
