Delhi District Court
Hansraj Sansi vs State on 19 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT01-014154-2024
CR No. 358/2024
Hansraj Sansi
S/o. Late Sh. Jagdish,
R/o. Sansiyon ki Dhani Village Kareda,
Bujurg, Tehsil Newali, Kareda, Bujurg,
District Tonk, Khareda, Rajasthan.
...... Revisionist
Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi)
...... Respondent
Date of institution of Revision : 10.09.2024
Date on which order reserved : 19.11.2024
Date on which order pronounced : 19.11.2024
ORDER
1. This revision petition u/s. 438/440 of BNSS (U/s. 397/399 Cr. P.C.) against the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the ld. Trial Court of Sh. Chatinder Singh, ld. JMFC-07, Central District, THC, Delhi vide which the ld. Trial Court dismissed the application u/s. 311 Cr. P.C. of the revisionist for recalling PW-3 for his cross- examination.
2. Heard on the maintainability of the present revision Hansraj Sansi Vs. State CR No. 358/2024 Page No. 1 of 13 petition.
3. It is important to refer Section 397 Cr. P.C. which provides for the power of the revision to the High Court or the Sessions Court to examine the record of any inferior criminal Court and to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality and propriety of any finding or order passed by the said Court.
4. Section 397 Cr. P.C. reads as follows :
"(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,- recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation.- All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub- section and of section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub- section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them."
5. A plain and simple reading of Section 397 Cr. P.C. would manifest that it enables the aggrieved parties to question the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by the inferior court Hansraj Sansi Vs. State CR No. 358/2024 Page No. 2 of 13 before the revisional court i.e. the High Court or the Sessions Court, as concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court and the Sessions Court by this Section.
6. The Sub-Section 2 of Section 397 (2) Cr. P.C. creates a bar upon the revision with respect to interlocutory orders. It provides that the power of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding.
7. The term "interlocutory order" means such order which is of a purely interim or temporary nature, which do not decide or touch upon the important rights or liabilities of the parties. An order which is pure and simple interlocutory order, which do not decide anything finally is to be considered as interlocutory order and no revision against that interlocutory order is maintainable under section 397(1) Cr. P.C. in view of the express bar imposed under section 397(2) Cr. P.C.
8. The orders of the Court can be categorized into three categories i.e. (1) final. (2) intermediate and (3) interlocutory. There is no doubt regarding the final and intermediate orders as the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised for such orders. An intermediate order is one which is interlocutory order in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. But any order which is interlocutory in nature and which does not finally decide the rights of the parties, no revision can lie against such Hansraj Sansi Vs. State CR No. 358/2024 Page No. 3 of 13 order.
9. In the landmark judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Amar Nath & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 137, the Hon'ble Court discussed the meaning of interlocutory order and observed as follows:-
"The main question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to what is the connotation of the term "interlocutory order" as appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision of such an order by the High Court. The term "interlocutory order" is a term of well-known legal significance and does not present any serious difficulty. It has been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster's New World Dictionary "interlocutory" has been defined as an order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. It seems to us that the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been 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 or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397 (2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Hansraj Sansi Vs. State CR No. 358/2024 Page No. 4 of 13 Court".
10. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, laid down the following test for deciding interlocutory order :-
"An order rejecting the plea of the accused on a point which, when accepted, will conclude the particular proceeding, will surely be not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2)."
11. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind - an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceeding would continue.
12. The view expressed in Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye was Hansraj Sansi Vs. State CR No. 358/2024 Page No. 5 of 13 followed in K.K. Patel V. State of Gujarat, [2000 6 SCC 195], wherein a revision petition was filed challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was held thus:-
"11. ..... It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397 (2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v. State and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable."
13. The four-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.C. Shukla vs. State through CBI, AIR 1980 SC 962 observed as follows:-
(1) that an order which does not determine the rights of the parties but only one aspect of the suit or the trial is an interlocutory order;
(2) that the concept of interlocutory order has to be explained, in contradistinction to a final order. In other words, if an order is not a final order, it would be an interlocutory order;
(3) that one of the tests generally accepted by the English Courts and the Federal Court is to see if the order is decided in one way, it may terminate the proceedings but if decided in another way, then the proceedings would continue; because, in our opinion, the term 'interlocutory order' in the Criminal Procedure Code has been used in a much wider sense so as to include even intermediate or quasi final orders;
Hansraj Sansi Vs. State CR No. 358/2024 Page No. 6 of 13 (4) that an order passed by the Special Court discharging the accused would undoubtedly be a final order inasmuch as it finally decides the rights of the parties and puts an end to the controversy and thereby terminates the entire proceedings before the court so that nothing is left to be done by the court thereafter; (5) that even if the Act does not permit an appeal against an interlocutory order the accused is not left without any remedy because in suitable cases, the accused can always move this Court in its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution even against an order framing charges against the accused. Thus, it cannot be said that by not allowing an appeal against an order framing charges, the Act works serious injustice to the accused.
14. In Haryana Land Reclamation and Development Corpn.
Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (1990) 3 SCC 588, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed thus:
"The term "interlocutory order" is a term of well known legal significance and does not present any serious difficulty. It has been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, letters patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster's New World Dictionary "interlocutory" has been defined as an order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. It seems to us that term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been 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 or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code."
15. In Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Hansraj Sansi Vs. State CR No. 358/2024 Page No. 7 of 13 Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India finally determined the test for deciding whether the order is interlocutory or not. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below :
"8. The interdict contained in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") is that the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order. Whether an order is interlocutory or not, cannot be decided by merely looking at the order or merely because the order was passed at the interlocutory stage. The safe test laid down by this Court through a series of decisions is this: if the contention of the petitioner who moves the superior court in revision, as against the order under challenge is upheld, would the criminal proceedings as a whole culminate? If they would, then the order is not interlocutory in spite of the fact that it was passed during any interlocutory stage."
16. Also, in Poonam Chand Jain and Anr. Vs. Fazru, (2004) 13 SCC 269, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:-
"Wharton's Law Lexicon (14th Edn. p. 529) defines interlocutory order thus:
"An interlocutory order or judgment is one made or given during the progress of an action, but which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties."
Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other words, in ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all."
17. The scope of criminal revision was discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2017) 14 SCC 809, and it was held as follows:-
Hansraj Sansi Vs. State CR No. 358/2024 Page No. 8 of 13 "15. While the text of sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the exercise of its revision jurisdiction, this power is equally severely curtailed by sub-section (2) thereof. There is a complete prohibition on a court exercising its revision jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is the nature of orders in respect of which a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction?
16. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction - that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order.
18. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Neelam Mahajan and Anr. Vs. The State & Ors., (2016) 229 DLT (CN) 29, observed as follows :-
"........ In this regard catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has settled the legal principle while holding that the meaning of the two words "final" and "interlocutory" has to be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required. However, generally speaking, a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed final and simultaneously, an interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main dispute may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, if the decision on an issue puts an end to the suit, the order is undoubtedly a final one but if the suit is still left alive and has yet to be tried in the ordinary way, no finality could be attached to the order."
19. In the light of above legal position, this Court shall now examine whether the impugned orders is in the nature interlocutory or not.
Hansraj Sansi Vs. State CR No. 358/2024 Page No. 9 of 13
20. The impugned order dated 23.08.2024 of the ld. Trial Court is reproduced below for reference :
"Cr. C No. 1979-2022 State vs. Hansraj Sansi 148/2019 (Wazirabad) 23.08.2024 Present: Sh. Ravinder Singh, Ld. APP for State.
Accused is present alongwith Ld. Counsel.
PW SI Jagdish Singh is stated to be expired. DVR is placed on record. Same is perused. In such circumstances, PW SI Jagdish Singh stands dropped from the list of witnesses.
At this stage, an application u/s 311 Cr.PC is moved by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused to recall PW 3 for his cross examination. It is submitted that the Ld. Counsel could not appear on the last date as he had to appear in some other court. It is lastly submitted that in the interest of justice, the application may be allowed.
Per contra, the application is opposed by the Ld. APP for the State on the ground that the ground taken by the Ld. Counsel is not tenable in the eyes of law. The witness PW-3, examined on the LDOH, was a public witness whose attendance was secured after bailable warrants. It is further submitted that the public witness should not be bothered again as sufficient opportunity was given to the accused on the last date of hearing.
Heard Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that sufficient opportunity is already granted to the accused to avail his chance to cross-examine the witness on the last date of hearing. Further, the purpose of Section 311 Cr.PC is not delay the trial or to extend opportunity to the party on unreasonable ground as the same would affect the right of the accused of his speedy trial. In view of the observation, the application filed by the accused u/s 311 Cr.PC is hereby dismissed.
No PW is left to be examined in the present case as per the list of witnesses.
At request of Ld. Counsel for the accused, the statement of accused be recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC.
Hansraj Sansi Vs. State CR No. 358/2024 Page No. 10 of 13 Accordingly, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC is recorded separately.
Put up for final arguments on 04.09.2024. Dasti copy.
(Chatinder Singh) JMFC-07/Central District Delhi/23.08.2024"
21. Vide the impugned order, the ld. Trial Court had dismissed the application u/s. 311 Cr. P.C. of the revisionist seeking cross-examination of PW-3.
22. At this stage, it is important to refer the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam, 2009 (5) SCC 153, wherein it was held :-
"5.....Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application u/s 311 Cr. P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred u/s 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 u/s 91 Cr. P.C. for production of documents and other on the application u/s 311 Cr. P.C. for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, u/s 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed."
23. Further in Mr. Situ Ramnath Shastri vs I.F.C.I. Factors Ltd Hansraj Sansi Vs. State CR No. 358/2024 Page No. 11 of 13 decided on 30th August, 2022 in Crl. M.C. No. 586/2021 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the following observations were made:
"12. The intent of section 311 Cr. P.C. is to empower the court to make a fair evaluation at every instance. The court has been entrusted with this authority so that justice be administered without being constrained by the specifics of the legislation. It makes no difference whether a witness has been cross-examined by the party seeking to recall them or whether all of the evidence has been closed or not. The question for the court is whether calling back such a witness and presenting evidence is necessary for a fair resolution of the case. This alone demonstrates how the preceding ruling on the application under Section 311 Cr. P.C. cannot be regarded as final. The court may permit a witness to be summoned if, at a later stage, it determines that recalling the witness was required for a just resolution of the matter.
It is trite law that an order passed under Section 311 Cr. P.C. is purely an interlocutory order and a revision against an interlocutory order is clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr. P.C. Consequently, the revision petitions preferred before Ld. ASJ were not maintainable and thus, the present petitions filed against the final outcome of the said revision petitions are again not maintainable."
24. In the light of above-mentioned precedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order deciding the application u/s. 311 Cr. P.C. can not in any way affect the finality of the dispute between the parties and definitely the said order is interlocutory in nature. The said order is purely of interim nature and does not finally decide the lis between the parties. The impugned order does not result in culmination of proceedings between the parties.
25. Accordingly, present revision petition is not found maintainable against the order on the application u/s. 311 Hansraj Sansi Vs. State CR No. 358/2024 Page No. 12 of 13 Cr. P.C. and is hereby dismissed.
26. Copy of this order be sent to the ld. Trial Court for information and necessary action.
27. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI) ASJ-04/Central/Delhi 19.11.2024(VR) Digitally signed SUSHIL by SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI ANUJ Date:
TYAGI 2024.11.19 14:46:39 +0530 Hansraj Sansi Vs. State CR No. 358/2024 Page No. 13 of 13