O R D E R

(03.01.2017) This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of CriminalProcedure against the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra in Sessions Trial No.568/2016, whereby application filed by the applicant for supplying the copy of charge-sheet has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant along with eight other accused persons is facing trial for the charge under Section 302 of IPC, apart from other Sections framed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra. The applicant is in jail and must be supplied with copy of the charge-sheet. The applicant, therefore, prayed before the trial Court to direct the prosecution to supply copy of the charge-sheet but this prayer was erroneously rejected by the trial Court adopting a hypertechnical view vide order dated 16.11.2016. Therefore, in the instant revision the applicant prayed for a direction to the trial Court to accept the application filed by the applicant and direct the prosecution to supply the copy of charge-sheet to the accused persons.

-( 2 )- CRR.No.1104/2016 3. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that this revision petition is not maintainable because it was filed against the order which is interlocutory in nature.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties.

5. The first question for determination is that whether any order declining supply of copy of police report and other documents to the accused persons is interlocutory in nature.

In Madhu Limaye V. State of Maharashtra, 1977 (4) SCC 551:1978 SCC (Cri) 10, it was held as under: “ Before we conclude we may point out an obvious, almost insurmountable, difficulty in the way of applying literally the test laid down in Kuppuswami Rao's case and in holding that an order of the kind under consideration being not a final order must necessarily be an interlocutory one. If a complaint is dismissed under Section 203 or under Section 204 (4), or the Court holds the proceeding to be void or discharges the accused, a revision to the High Court at the instance of the complainant or the prosecutor would be competent, otherwise it will make Section 398 of the new Code otiose. Does it stand to reason, then, that an accused will have no remedy to move the High Court in revision or invoke its inherent power for the quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated upon a complaint or otherwise and which is fit to be quashed on the face of it ? The legislature left the power to order further inquiry intact in 'section 398. Is it not, then, in consonance with the sense of justice to leave intact the remedy of the accused to move the High Court for setting aside the order adversely made against him in similar circumstances and to quash the proceeding ? The answer must be given in favour of the just and reasonable view expressed by us above ” 6. In my view, supply of documents is one of the most important rights of the accused and denial of such rights in an unreasonable manner would invariably lead to failure of justice. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sethuraman Vs Rajamanickam: (2009) 5 SCC 153 : 2009 (2) SCC (Cri) 27, at page 154 with respect to Section 91 and Section 311 of Cr.P.C, held that :

-( 3 )- CRR.No.1104/2016 “ Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents andrejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against thoseorders was clearly barred under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent/accused