Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Hemraj Nama vs M/S Goyal General Store on 6 May, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 283/2013 HEMRAJ NAMA VS. M/S. GOYAL GENERAL STORE. DATE OF ORDER : 06.05.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II Mr. Mohammed Anees, for the accused-petitioner. This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 15.01.2013 passed by learned Session Judge, Sawai Madhopur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 47/2012, whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner-appellant under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning the Ledger Books of respondent firm of financial year 2005-06 and 2006-07 from the respondent-complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur against the present petitioner in respect of dishonour of cheque of Rs. 20,000/-. After the trial, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 138 N.I. Act to six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- vide judgment dated 03.04.2012. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court against the judgment dated 03.04.2012. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 91 CR.P.C. for summoning the documents regarding ledger books of respondent firm of financial year 2005-06 and 2006-07. The respondent filed reply to the application inter alia stating therein that the application has been filed by the petitioner only to delay the proceedings. Learned Appellate Court after considering the arguments of the parties, vide order dated 15.01.2013 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.01.2013, this revision petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused vehemently submitted that order passed by the Appellate Court is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. The documents were necessary for just and proper decision of the appeal. The learned Court below has not considered the matter in the true prospect and committed illegality in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. Ledger books of the respondent firm of financial year 2005-06 and 2006-07 are very much relevant for just and proper adjudication of the aforesaid appeal.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully perused the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court and material available on record.
5. Order of dismissal of application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and no revision lies against that interlocutory order. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sethuraman V. Rajamanickam, 2009 Cr.L.J. 2247 held that revision against the order rejecting application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was the order of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., revision petition was clearly not maintainable. Relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sethuraman(supra) reads as under:
4. Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders 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 and the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the appellant/complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders, i.e., one on the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable........
6. So, it is clear that in this case, learned Appellate Court has passed the order on an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and revision would not lie against that interlocutory order passed by the learned Appellate Court.
7. In view of above discussion, revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner is liable to be dismissed and the same is, hereby, dismissed at the stage of admission, so that delay in disposal of the appeal may be avoided.
8. Stay Application No. 1104/2013 also stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II),J.
Manoj.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
MANOJ NARWANI JUNIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT.