Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.21 seconds)Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande & Ors vs Uttam & Another on 11 February, 1999
In addition to the decisions discussed above, useful reference may also be made to the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and Ors. v. Uttam and Anr. the main question before the Supreme Court was whether the order of Magistrate directing the issuance of process is an interlocutory order or not. The said question was directly in issue in the said case. The said issue was decided giving detailed reasons. The Supreme Court held after giving detailed reasoning that the order of Magistrate directing issuance of process is not an interlocutory order and the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 could be exercised against the same. In view of the above observations, it is clear that an aggrieved person against whom process has been issued, can prefer a revision against the order of the Magistrate issuing process. Thus, it is clear that the applicants have an efficacious remedy of preferring a revision against the order of the Magistrate issuing process.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. on 17 September, 1992
It is true that the words "interlocutory order" has been used but applying the principles in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sun Engineering Works referred to in para 9 above, it cannot be said that paras 9 to 11 of the judgment in the case of Poonamchand lay down the ratio that a revision against an order issuing process is not maintainable.
M/S. Bhaskar Industries Ltd vs M/S. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. Ors on 27 August, 2001
In the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2002 (1) Mh.L.J. 81, in relation to the powers of revision, the Supreme Court has observed that the interdict contained in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 an interlocutory stage. The Supreme Court laid down that the safe test is that 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 an interlocutory order in spite of the fact that it was passed during any interlocutory stage. In the present case, if the contention of the present applicants in respect of the order issuing process is upheld the proceedings in the said case would come to an end, hence, in the light of the above decision, the order issuing process cannot be said to be an interlocutory order even though it may have been passed at an interlocutory stage.
K.K. Patel And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 12 May, 2000
12. Useful reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Patel and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. . In the said case, a private complaint was filed against the appellants before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Magistrate issued process against the appellants. The appellants filed an application for discharge. The objection which was raised before the learned Magistrate was that no sanction was obtained to prosecute the accused. The said application came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the appellants filed revision before the Sessions Court wherein two grounds were raised, the first was that no sanction was obtained to prosecute the accused persons and the second objection was that no complaint could be filed after one year from the date of the act complained of. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the objections of the appellants i.e. accused persons and the process issued by the trial Court was quashed by the Sessions Court. The said order was challenged before the High Court and the High Court set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court mainly on the ground that the Sessions Court should not have entertained the revision at all as the order challenged before it was only an interlocutory order. The Supreme Court has held in para No. 10 that the appellants were not estopped from canvassing on that additional ground also before the Sessions Court in revision as they were challenging therein the very order of issuance of process against them.
Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1977
14. The question as to what is an interlocutory order came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra . In the said case, the complaint was filed before the Court of Sessions. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Court of Sessions. Being aggrieved thereby the appellants preferred a revision before the High Court. The High Court rejected that said revision application on the sole ground that it was not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 15 October, 2004
16. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants cited two more decisions in respect of his contention that the order of the Magistrate issuing process is an interlocutory order and hence, revision in respect of the same would not be maintainable. The said decisions are in the case of Poonam Chand Jain and Anr. v. Fazru and the decision of the Federal Court in the case of S. Kuppuswami v. The King . As far as the case of Poonam Chand is concerned, the main question which arose for consideration was whether a second complaint could be filed. After holding that a second complaint could be filed in exceptional circumstances in paras 9, 10 and 11 the decisions in the case of Adalat Prasad and Subramanium Sethuraman have been discussed. In these paras the powers of the "Magistrate" in respect of reviewing his own order issuing process have been discussed and not the powers of the Sessions Court to entertain a revision against the order of the Magistrate issuing process.
S.K. Bhatia & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 12 August, 1983
In a recent decision of the Supreme Court dated 11-3-2005 in the case of S.K. Bhatt v. State of U.P., 2005 AIR SCW 1435, the order of the High Court setting aside the order of the Sessions Court and remanding the matter back to the Sessions Court for deciding the revision on merits was challenged. The High Court had held that decision of the Sessions Court observing that order issuing summons is an interlocutory order and therefore, revision was barred, was incorrect and the order was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remanded back for deciding the revision on merits. In the Supreme Court besides praying that the above order of the High Court be set aside, a prayer was also made for expunging the remarks made by the High Court against the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court did not set aside the said order of the High Court remanding the matter back to the Sessions Court for deciding the revision on merits. In the said case leave was only granted to the petitioner to move an application before the High Court for expunging the remarks by which he felt aggrieved. Thus, from this decision also it is clear that the order issuing summons or process against the accused is not an interlocutory order and revision against the same is maintainable.
Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker vs State Of Gujarat on 15 December, 1967
21. Going Back to the issue as to whether an order is an interlocutory order or not, in a majority decision by a Bench of five Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal Magan Led Thacker v. State of Gujarat , four tests were culled out in respect of whether a judgment or order can be said to be final or interlocutory. One of the tests is that "if the order in question is reversed would the action have to go on?" If due to the order being reversed, the action does not go on it would be an interlocutory order. The Apex Court in the case of Madhu Limaye has observed that applying the test in the case of Mohan Lal to the facts of the instant case, it would be noticed that if the plea of the appellant succeeds and the order of the Sessions Judge is reversed, the criminal proceeding as initiated and instituted against them cannot go on. Thus, an order issuing process would not be 'an interlocutory order.