Sh. Satya Pal Gupta vs State on 9 December, 2021
The other point of the case of Amar
Nath (supra) was reaffirmed that the interlocutory order is not
converse of the final order and that order on charge is not an
interlocutory order.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 1087 (0.93 seconds)Documents citing
Amar Nath And Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 29 July, 1977
Pilla Vijaya Kumar, Secunderabad., vs State, Rep By Cbi, Spl.Police ... on 12 November, 2018
The first and foremost contention raised by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I is that, the order impugned in
these revision petitions is not a final order, as the petition filed
under Section 239 Cr.P.C was dismissed by the Trial Court. If, this
order is upheld, it would not terminate or culminate the entire
proceedings against these petitioners. Therefore, it is an
interlocutory order and no revision lies against such an order, in
view of the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C and in support of his
contentions, he placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme
Court in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana9, V.C. Shukla v. State
through C.B.I10, Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan11, Mohan
Lal Magan Lal thacker v. State of Gujarat12.
Ch.Gopala Krishna Murthy, Guntur Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Thrspl.Pp For ... on 12 November, 2018
The first and foremost contention raised by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I is that, the order impugned in
these revision petitions is not a final order, as the petition filed
under Section 239 Cr.P.C was dismissed by the Trial Court. If, this
order is upheld, it would not terminate or culminate the entire
proceedings against these petitioners. Therefore, it is an
interlocutory order and no revision lies against such an order, in
view of the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C and in support of his
contentions, he placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme
Court in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana9, V.C. Shukla v. State
through C.B.I10, Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan11, Mohan
Lal Magan Lal thacker v. State of Gujarat12.
Manoj Kumar Patel vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 1 December, 2020
11)
"11........ It is now well-high 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 Vs. State of Haryana ((1977) 4 SCC 137), Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra ((1977) 4 SCC 551), V.C. Shukla Vs. State (1980 Supp SCC 92 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 695) and Rajendra Kumar (Sitaram Pande Vs. Uttam ((1999) 3 SCC 134 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 393). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceeding, 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 proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable." (Emphasis supplied)
M/S N.D.Computers Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Little Rose Trading Pvt. Ltd on 16 August, 2016
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.
M/S N.D.Computers Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Little Rose Trading Pvt. Ltd on 16 August, 2016
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.
M/S N.D.Computers Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Little Rose Trading Pvt. Ltd on 16 August, 2016
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.
M/S N.D.Computers Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Little Rose Trading Pvt. Ltd on 16 August, 2016
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.
Y. Krishnamurthy vs Sharanappa on 4 December, 1997
Two points were decided in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, , in the following terms :
Sh. Raja Ram vs Sh. Pawan Kumar Verma on 1 September, 2022
It was
said: 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 through CBI10 and
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam11). 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.