Back
N.L.UNTWALIA, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Amar Nath – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
Judgment
FAZAL ALI, J. - This appeal by special leave involves an important question as to the interpretation, scope, ambit and commutation of the word "interlocutory order" as appearing in sub-s. (2) of S. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. For the purpose of brevity, we shall refer to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as "the 1898 Code", to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as amended in 1955 as "the 1955 amendment" and to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as "the 1973 Code". The appeal arises in the following circumstances.
2. An incident took place in village Amin on April 23, 1976 in the course of which three persons died and F. I. R. No. 139 dated April 23, 1976 was filed at police station Butana, District Karnal at about 5-30 P. M. The F. I. R. mentioned a number of accused persons including the appellants as having participated in the occurrence which resulted in the death of the deceased. The police, after holding investigations, submitted a charge-sheet against the other accused persons except the appellants against whom the police opined that no case at all was made out as no weapon was recovered nor was there any clear evidence about the participation o
Krishan Murari VS Mohinder Pal - 1978 0 Supreme(P&H) 64: Treated as potentially bad law - explicitly states "It was, therefore, doubted if Amar Nath and others case (supra) 'was correctly decided'." This indicates significant questioning of its correctness.
[PREMWATI
VS MAHESH CHANDRA
1979 0 Supreme(All) 545](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500039113): Treated as bad law - explicitly states "the Supreme Court modified its earlier decision in Amarnath v. State of Haryana".
Chandan Siagh VS Indra Mohan Jha - 1979 0 Supreme(Pat) 169: Treated as bad law - states "the view taken in Amar Naths case was modified in that case".
Bichitra Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 1978 0 Supreme(Raj) 398: Treated as bad law - states "His Lordship Untwalia, J., speaking for the court modulated the statement of the law propounded in the case of Amar Nath v. State of Haryana".
Sunil Kumar Sabharwal VS Neelam Sabharwal - 1990 0 Supreme(P&H) 752, Sunil Kumar Sabharwal VS Neelam Sabharwal - 1990 0 Supreme(P&H) 17: Treated as bad law - these snippets repeat language interpreting Amar Nath but in context of later cases (e.g., Madhu Limaye) that modulated or modified it, as cross-referenced with modification language elsewhere.
The vast majority of cases treat Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (AIR 1977 SC 2185, (1977) 4 SCC 137, 1977 Cri LJ 1891) positively as good law, often cited as authority on "interlocutory order" under Section 397(2) CrPC. Examples include:
[Chhedilal
VS Kamla
1977 0 Supreme(All) 289](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500038607): "I am fortified in my view by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amar Nath v."
Gurcharan Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1977 0 Supreme(P&H) 206: "This view finds support from the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Amar Nath V/s. State of Haryana"
NOORMOHD VS STATE OF DELHI - 1978 0 Supreme(Del) 58: Cited approvingly alongside other cases.
Bhanwar Lal and Dhan Raj VS State Of Rajasthan - 1978 0 Supreme(Raj) 248: Cited for applicability of Sections 397(2) and 482.
MAJOR R. K. VOL GOLDSTAIN VS STANLEY HAQUE - 1978 0 Supreme(HP) 57: "We find that on this question there are two specific decisions given by the Supreme Court The first decision is found in Amar Nath"
BINOD BIHARI BEHERA VS NIRANJAN SAHU - 1979 0 Supreme(Ori) 155: Principles laid down and relied upon.
Ravi Singh And Another VS State Of Bihar - 1979 0 Supreme(Pat) 75: "As pointed out in Amar Naths case"
K. L. SACHDEVA VS RAKESH KUMAR JAM - 1983 0 Supreme(All) 141: Facts discussed approvingly.
T. T. Varkey VS V. Nandilathuparambil Govindan - 1983 0 Supreme(Mad) 310: Reliance placed on the decision.
And ~150+ other snippets (e.g., Madhu Limaye VS State Of Maharashtra - 1977 0 Supreme(SC) 318, Ankaputtaswamy and others VS Papegowda and State - 1978 0 Supreme(Mad) 60, M. C. ARORA VS UNION OF INDIA - 1978 0 Supreme(Del) 60, etc.) that cite it as precedent without negative treatment, often with phrases like "reliance placed on", "held as under", "laid down", "observed", "followed".
Explanation: These overwhelmingly affirm Amar Nath as authoritative, especially on what constitutes an "interlocutory order" (e.g., summoning witnesses, bail orders). No overruling; modifications (noted in bad_law) do not render it bad law entirely.
Banowarilal Tibrewalla VS State of Assam & Another - 1984 0 Supreme(Gau) 49: Distinguished - "However, what was actually decided in Amar Nath's case was that the Magistrate's order summoning the appellant was not an 'interlocutory'".
MADAN SEN SINGH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 1995 0 Supreme(All) 306: Distinguished - "The case of amur Nath v. State of U. P. , AIR 1977 S. C. 2185, was also considered" (facts differ).
ASHFAQ HUSSAIN VS ENTRAM HUSSAIN - 1990 0 Supreme(All) 754: Distinguished implicitly by later cases like Madhu Limaye.
Explanation: These note factual or contextual differences but do not reject the legal principle.
Cases like Prem Pandhi VS Mahesh Garg - 1979 0 Supreme(MP) 100, V. C. Shukla VS State Through C. B. I - 1979 0 Supreme(SC) 520, All India Reporter Ltd. VS Srish Chandra Nath - 1980 0 Supreme(Cal) 79 simply reference Amar Nath without strong positive/negative treatment (e.g., "relied upon" but in passing).
Explanation: Neutral citations without clear endorsement or criticism.
None identified. All snippets clearly reference Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (the dominant case across the list), with treatment determinable from explicit language. Minor variations (e.g., typos like "Amarnath", "Amar Naths") refer to the same case. Other named cases (e.g., State of Gujarat (1968), Madhu Limaye) appear as comparators but are not the focus of negative treatment here.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
