Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Background in Nakul Singh And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 8 April, 2019Matching Fragments
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx"
13. At an earlier occasion, the Apex Court in Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others reported in 1977 CRI.L.J. 1891 considered the same and held as follows:-
"6. Let us now proceed to interpret the provisions of s. 397 against the historical background of these facts. Sub- section (2) of s. 397 of the 1973 Code may be extracted thus:
In the background aforesaid we proceed to examine as to what is the correct position of law after the introduction of a provision like sub section (2) of section 397 in, the 1973 Code.
15. So far nature of order is concerned, on that very score, it has been held:-
"12. Ordinarily and generally the expression 'interlocutory order' has been understood and taken to mean as a converse of the term 'final order'. In volume 22 of the third edition of Halsbury's Laws of England at page 742, however, it has been stated in para 1606 "....... a judgment or order may be final for one purpose and interlocutory for another, or final as to part and interlocutory as to part. The meaning of two words must therefore be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required." In para 1607 it is said :
This aspect of Kartar Singh (supra) has been followed in Girish Kumar Suneja ((2017) 14 SCC 809) in paragraph 40 thereof and we respectfully concur with the same. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the Delhi High Court judgment's conclusions in paragraph 33 (a), (b) and (d) must be set aside."
17. In the aforesaid background, insisting or directing that the petition having been filed under the guise of Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be converted as an appeal in terms of Section 14A of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will not tantamount to encroach upon the absoluteness of the High Court.
18. In likewise manner, the scope of Sub-section-3 also needs in depth scrutiny in the background of divergent view Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4792 of 2018(10) dt.08-04-2019 in consonance with the forbidding clause. Furthermore, whether Sub-section-3 would be the subject of subversion in the background of relevant provisions of the Limitation Act guiding the issue coupled with the power of the High Court .