Point of Law: It seems well settled that at the Sections 227-228 stage the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court may for this limited purpose shift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Revision Application is directed against the order dated 08.02.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anjar, Kutch in Criminal Case No. 584 of 2012, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application at Exh. 17 filed by the accused (petitioners herein) seeking their discharge from the case under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”).

2. The short facts giving rise to the present Revision Application are that the complainant Anilbhai S/o Vashrambhai Savadiya had lodged a complaint against the present petitioners-accused alleging inter alia that the petitioners had placed two orders with the complainant on 14.11.2011 and 21.11.2011 for the purchase of 293 metric tonnes of TMT Steel Bars, against which they had given ten cheques amounting to Rs. 1.19 Crores. Accordingly, the complainant had delivered the goods on various dates in November, 2011. Thereafter, the cheques given by the petitioners were presented in the Bank by the complainant, however all the ten cheques had returned dishonored with the endorsement “insufficient balance”. It was further alleged that since the petitioners-accused had not paid the amount of cheques and committed cheating and breach of trust, the complainant had filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and that the present complaint was filed for the offences under Section 406, 420 and 114 of IPC. The Investigating Officer after the completion of the investigation, had filed a chargesheet on 03.05.2012 before the trial Court, which was registered as the Criminal Case No. 584 of 2012. On 05.08.2015, the petitioners preferred an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C seeking their discharge from the case, which has been dismissed by the trial Court vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Application has been filed under Section 397(1) of the Code.

3. At the outset, the learned Advocate Mr. Anuj Trivedi appearing for the respondent No. 2 complainant raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the Revision Application by submitting that the impugned order being an interlocutory order, the Revision Application was barred under Section 397(2) of Code. The learned Advocate Mr. Jay Thakkar appearing for the petitioners, in response thereto placed heavy reliance on various decisions of the Supreme Court to submit that the impugned order could not be said to be an interlocutory order and therefore the Revision Application against the same was maintainable.

4. The sheet anchor of the arguments of the learned Advocate Mr.Thakkar appearing for the petitioners was that the term “interlocutory” used in Section 397(2) of the Code is used in restricted sense and not in very broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes the orders of a purely interim or temporary nature, which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. Since vide the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the important right of the petitioners-accused to get discharge from the case has been affected, the said order could not be said to be an interlocutory order. Learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar to buttress his submissions has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of Amar Nath and Others versus State of Haryana and Another reported in AIR 1977 SC 2185, Madhu Limaye versus State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1978 SC 47 and in case of Parmeshwari Devi versus State and Anr. reported in AIR 1977 SC 403. Distinguishing the observations made by the Supreme Court in case of V.C. Shukla versus State through CBI reported in 1980 AIR 962, relied upon by Mr.Anuj Trivedi, Mr.Thakkar empathetically submitted that in the said judgment, the Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of maintainability of the appeal under Section 11(1) of the Special Court's Act, 1979, which barred the filing of the appeal against an interlocutory order and tha