Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Aniruddha Singh, J.
Anil Kumar - Revisionist
Vs.
State Of U.P. & Anr. - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No. 1640 of 2019
Decided On : 12-12-2019
For the Revisionist : Sunil Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party : Govt. Adv.
The main legal point established is that orders under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory and not revisable, and that revisional power cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner.
Headnote:
Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Cross-Examination - The court rejected the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for cross-examination of a witness, holding that material cross-examination had already been done and no prejudice was caused to the revisionist. The court cited previous judgments to support the view that orders under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory and not revisable, and that revisional power cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner.
Fact of the Case:
F.I.R. was lodged against the husband and others for demanding additional dowry and killing the deceased. The revisionist moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to cross-examine a witness, which was rejected by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cross-examination of the witness had been done and no prejudice was caused to the revisionist. It held that the impugned order was legal and no interference was called for.
Issues: The issue revolved around the rejection of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for cross-examination of a witness and the legality of the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cited previous judgments to support its view that orders under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory and not revisable, and that revisional power cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed at the admission stage.
JUDGMENT :
Aniruddha Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for revisionist and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA. Perused the record.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred by Anil Kumar against the impugned order dated 29.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-II, Court No. 2, Sultanpur in S.T. No. 150 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No./F.I.R. No. 531 of 2011 (State of U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar), under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bazar Khala Shukla, District C.S. Nagar/Amethi whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
3. In a nutshell, facts of the case are that F.I.R. was lodged on 19.9.2011 against four accused persons namely Anil Kumar (husband), Ram Jas, Dileep Kumar and mother-in-law (wife of Ram Jas) alleging that the marriage of deceased Raj Kumari (daughter of complainant) was solemnized with Anil Kumar 14 months back, they demanded additional dowry from the deceased for which the deceased was being tortured by them and on 17.9.2011 they killed her by administering poison. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Danbahadur (father of deceased) was examined and cross-examined as P.W.1 by prosecution. Later on, application for cross-examination of P.W.1 was moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C which was rejected. Hence this revision.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that impugned order is illegal, against facts and law and without applying judicial mind. F.I.R. was lodged after two days of incident without explaining delay after thought and with due legal consultation. There is no evidence against the revisionist.
5. Learned AGA opposed the contention of learned counsel for revisionist and submitted that order passed by the Court concerned is legal and revision has no force.
6. From the perusal of record, it transpires that during trial an application 41-B was moved by the revisionist Anil Kumar with the prayer to summon P.W.1 Danbahadur for cross-examination again. On application 41-B objection was filed stating therein that cross-examination of P.W. 1 Dan Bahadur was done by Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for revisionist in length and for delaying tactic, this application was moved. After hearing both the parties, impugned order was passed and it was held that material cross-examination was done by learned counsel for the revisionist and other things may be proved at the time of producing evidence and documents in defence after recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., application was dismissed.
7. From the perusal of record, it also transpires that cross-examination of P.W.1 was done by learned counsel for the revisionist (annexed at page no. 41 to 43) and relevant questions were asked. Hence, no prejudice is caused to the revisionist by rejecting the application of revisionist by impugned order.
8. In the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam, 2009 (65) ACC 607 SC, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that rejection order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory order, hence revision is not maintainable.
9. Same view was taken by Allahabad High Court in the case of Asif Hussain Vs. State of U.P. 2007 (57) ACC 1036.
10. The observation made by Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of Asif Hussain (supra) para 26 is reproduced as under:
26. From what I have stated above I find my self in disagreement with my esteemed brother Hon'ble V.K. Chaturvedi, J. that the order under Section 311 Cr. P.C. is a final order and is a revisable one. In my view it is nothing but an interlocutory order and revision against such an order is barred under Section 397(2) Cr. P.C.
11. Moreover, in the case of Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & another Appeal(Crl.) No. 1138 of 2001 decided on 6.11.2001, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a ro
