Delhi District Court
M/S N.D.Computers Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Little Rose Trading Pvt. Ltd on 16 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH
DISTRICT& SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
C.R.No.181/16
CNR No: DLKA010033222016
1.M/s N.D.Computers Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director Satender Tiwari
2. Satender Tiwari
S/o Sh. A.B.Tiwari
3. Gayatri Tiwari
W/o Sh. A.B.Tiwari
All R/o R/o 91, Rampuri Kalkaji, Delhi. ....Revisionists
Versus
M/s Little Rose Trading Pvt. Ltd.
Through its A.R.Sh. Harish Kumar Gupta
Head Office At:
205, Deepali Building, 92, Nehru Place
Delhi110019. ....Respondent
Date of Institution : 09.03.2016 Date of order reserved : 22.07.2016 Date of order : 16.08.2016 O R D E R
The revisionist has assailed order dated 09.12.2015 by way of present revision whereby application of the revisionist filed under Section 254 read with Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning C.R.No 181/16 M/s N.D.Computers P. Ltd. Etc. vs. M/s Little Rose Trading P. Ltd. Page 1 of 5 defence witnesses was dismissed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate/East. It is against that order present revision petition has been filed. 2 Notice was issued to the respondent. Trial Court record was summoned.
3 I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties on maintainability of the revision petition. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that present revision petition is not maintainable as impugned order is interlocutory in nature. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has submitted that present revision petition is maintainable as impugned order is not interlocutory, rather it has substantially affected the rights of the revisionists. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist in support of his contention has relied upon judgments:
(1) Amar Nath vs State of Haryana 1977 Cri.L.J. 1891; (2) Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) versus M.S. Sampoornam(Mrs.) (2007) 2 SCC 258.
4 In Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana(supra), it has been observed that the term "interlocutory order" in S.297(2) 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 can not be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar filing of a revision petition.
C.R.No 181/16 M/s N.D.Computers P. Ltd. Etc. vs. M/s Little Rose Trading P. Ltd. Page 2 of 55 In Kalyani Baskar vs. M.S.Sampoornam(supra), it has been held that an accused could not be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence and denial of such opportunity would lead to an unfair trial. Fair Trial means and includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove innocence of accused. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right and denial of such right is denial of fair trial. 6 I have perused the impugned order and Trial Court record as well as file of the present revision petition and material available thereon. The accused persons/revisionist had moved an application under Section 254/91 Cr.P.C. Vide impugned order dated 09.12.2015, Ld. Trial Court made following observations:
"Record reveals that vide order dated 09.12.2013, this court has dismissed application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused persons, which was also pertaining to summon record of CC No.613/13 pending in Court of Sh.Kuldeep Narayan, the Ld. ACMM(East) and to summon witnesses namely, Srikant, Mohan, Birju & Kumar Mukesh for confronting them with signatures on record and also with CCTV footage. Since, the present application does not state any new reason which has already not been considered by this court in its order dated 09.12.2013, now this court can not review its own order. Furthermore, the said application U/s 311 Cr.P.C.was dismissed on merits vide order dated 09.12.2013 and therefore the accused persons can not be allowed to continuously seek the same relief again and again in guise of new application.C.R.No 181/16 M/s N.D.Computers P. Ltd. Etc. vs. M/s Little Rose Trading P. Ltd. Page 3 of 5
Furthermore, the present application has been filed U/s 254 Cr.P.C. which has also been listed as a provision of law along with Section 311 Cr.P.C. in the earlier application filed by the accused persons, which was dismissed on 09.12.2013. Hence, in view of above discussion, the present application is nothing but application to review order dated 09.12.2013 as the relief sought is same in both the applications and thus the present applicable is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed."
7 Ld. Trial Jude has given detailed reasons for dismissal of application of the revisionists. Moreover, in Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana(supra) itself, it has been held that orders of summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling or reports and such further steps in aid of the pending proceedings, are interlocutory order against which no revision would lie under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. This decision of Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana(supra) was reviewed and reaffirmed in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharastra AIR 1978 SC 47. In Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam 2009 Cri.L.J. 2247, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that orders rejecting application (under Section 311 Cr.P.C. & 91 Cr.P.C.) for production of certain documents by complainant and recalling him for cross examination, order directing production of documents passed without even hearing complainant are interlocutory orders and revision petition against such order is not tenable.
C.R.No 181/16 M/s N.D.Computers P. Ltd. Etc. vs. M/s Little Rose Trading P. Ltd. Page 4 of 58 Therefore, I am of the view that impugned order being interlocutory in nature, present revision petition is not maintainable. Same is accordingly dismissed. TCR be sent back along with copy of the order.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( TALWANT SINGH ) Dated: 16.08.2016 District & Sessions Judge (East) Karkardooma Courts : Delhi C.R.No 181/16 M/s N.D.Computers P. Ltd. Etc. vs. M/s Little Rose Trading P. Ltd. Page 5 of 5