Delhi District Court
Complainant/ vs ) M/S Modern Ellora Industries on 4 October, 2010
:1:
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja
Additional Sessions Judge FTC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Criminal Revision No. 49/10
Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports
O/o Chief Controller of Imports & Exports
New Delhi
.....Complainant/Revisionist
V E R S U S
1) M/s Modern Ellora Industries
Basti Sheikh Road
Manjit Nagar
Jallandhar, Punjab
2) Inderjit Singh
S/o Sh. Karam Chand
R/o W.G. 264, Ishlamabad
Jallandhar, Punjab
.....Respondent
Order Date of Institution of Revision: 01/4/2010 Date for which order was reserved: 30/9/2010 Date of Order 04/10/2010 :2:
1. This revision has been directed against an order dated 25/2/10 passed by Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/Delhi, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner (Complainant) DGFT under Section 311 Cr.P.C was dismissed.
2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the Revision Petition are that on a complaint filed by the Petitioner DGFT, Accused are facing trial for having committed offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and Section 5 of the Import and Export Act, 1947.
3. It is alleged that the Accused during the period 198588 entered into a criminal conspiracy with a view to obtain advance import license under the Duty Exemption Scheme and to misutilise the imported material by not reexporting the finished goods as per the conditions of the advance license issued to them and the provisions of the import export policy in the aforesaid orders and thereby defrauded Government of India to the tune of Rs. 14,45,967/ and caused loss to the foreign exchange to the tune of Rs. 9,73,345/.
4. The Accused were charged for the aforesaid offences vide order dated 30/10/2000 and thereafter the case was fixed for evidence.
5. The Complainant examined several witnesses before prosecution evidence was ordered to be closed vide order dated 12/2/2004. The statement of the Accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 17/4/2004. Defence evidence was closed on 03/8/2004. However, the Complainant thereafter filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C on 21/3/2006, which was allowed by Learned Trial Court and PW Inspector N. S. Yadav was partly examined on 04/1/2008. On 25/1/2008, PW N. S. :3: Yadav was present but was not examined and prosecution evidence was ordered to be closed by Learned Trial Court.
6. The Revisionist/Complainant herein filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, which was dismissed by Learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 25/2/10 with cost of Rs. 5,000/ to be deposited with the Legal Aid Cell. The present petition has thus been directed against the aforesaid order dated 25/2/2010 stating that the same should be set aside and the Revisionist may be permitted to lead prosecution evidence.
7. The Respondent opposed the petition on the ground of its very maintainability besides other grounds. Learned Counsel for Respondent strongly argued that no revision is maintainable against the order dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, in as much as it is an interlocutory order. Reliance was placed on Section 397 Cr.P.C in support of the arguments along with certain judgments.
8. I have heard the arguments and gone through the trial court record.
9. Section 397(2) Cr.P.C clearly provides that the powers of revision conferred by sub Section (1) shall not be exercised in interlocutory order passed in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceedings. The term interlocutory order has not been defined in the Code but its scope has been discussed in the various judgments. In a judgment titled as Sanjay and another Vs State of Haryana and another Reported as 2005 CRI. L. J. 287, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court observed as under: "After hearing the learned counsel, I have reached :4: at the conclusion that the instant petition is not maintainable as it is directed against an interlocutory order. Under Section 397(2) read with Section 401, there is a specific bar for exercise of revisional powers against an interlocutory order. The question whether a particular order would fall within the expression interlocutory order has been considered by the Supreme Court in numerous judgments. In this regard, a reference may be made to Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. , (2001) 7 SCC 401: (2001 Cri LJ 4250); K. K. Patel Vs State of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195:
(2000 Cri LJ 4592) and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande Vs Uttam, (1999) 3 SCC 134: (1999 Cri LJ 1620). According to the view taken by the Supreme Court, the term "Interlocutory order" is to be used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights of the liabilities of the parties. The aforementioned view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Amar Nath Vs State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137: (1977 Cri LJ 1891). At the same time, it :5: has also been observed that it is not possible to make a catalogue or orders which may fall within the expression of interlocutory orders. The only test devised by the Supreme Court is to determine whether criminal proceedings as a whole would be culminated. If the aforementioned test is applied to the facts of the present case, then the order passed under Section 311 of the Code of would necessarily be an interlocutory order convered by Section 397 (2) of the Code. The view that an order passed under Section 31 of the Code is an interlocutory order is supported by the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Teekam Singh Vs IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, (1995) 1 Crimes 471."
10. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Seturaman Vs. Rajamanickam Reported as 2009 CRI. L. J. 2247 also laid down that the orders on application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling witnesses was an order of interlocutory nature in which case under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C revision was clearly not maintainable.
11. In view of the aforesaid observations, I am inclined to agree with the submissions of Learned Counsel for Respondent that the present petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law, having been preferred against an order of dismissal of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, which being an interlocutory order, cannot be challenged by way of :6: Revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C
12. Accordingly, the present Revision Petition is dismissed. Trial court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith along with copy of this order.
Announced in open court today on October 04, 2010 (Kaveri Baweja) ASJFTC(Central)/Delhi :7: Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Vs Modern Ellora and Ors.
04/10/2010 Present: None.
Vide separate order announced in open court today, the present Revision Petition is dismissed. Trial court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith along with copy of this order.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(Kaveri Baweja) ASJFTC(Central)/Delhi/04.10.10