Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4782
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
J.B. Associates, Rep. by its Partners & Others
Versus
State Rep By Inspector of Police, Economics Offences Wing – II, Vellore
Crl.R.C.No.1080 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided On : 02-11-2010
For the Petitioners:E. Kannadasan, Advocate.
Orders rejecting objections for marking documents in evidence for the prosecution are not revisable under Sections 397(2) Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Revision - Marking of Document - The court held that an order rejecting the objection for marking a particular document in evidence for the prosecution is not revisable under Sections 397(2) Cr.P.C as it falls within the ambit of an interlocutory order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge an order rejecting the objection raised for marking a particular document in evidence for the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revision is not maintainable as the order falls within the ambit of the bar provided under Sections 397(2) Cr.P.C.
Issues: The issue was whether the order rejecting the objection for marking a particular document in evidence for the prosecution is revisable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that such orders fall within the ambit of an interlocutory order and cannot be revisable under Sections 397(2) Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The criminal revision case was dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
1. The arguments advanced by Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel for the petitioners were heard. The grounds of revision and connected papers filed along with the grounds of revision were also perused.
2. An order rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner for marking a particular document in evidence for the prosecution is sought to be challenged by filing the present revision. An order either marking or refusing to mark a particular document and similarly an order either permitting or refusing to permit a particular question to be asked during the examination of the witnesses cannot be said to be not an interlocutory order. When such is the nature of the order sought to be challenged, which falls within the ambit of the bar provided under Sections 397(2) Cr.P.C, the same cannot be fished out to make it a revisable order, by filing a petition inviting an order in writing in this regard.
3. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the revision is not maintainable. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
