Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)Section 123 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1977
3. According to Mr. K. N. Raina, appearing for the petitioner, the impugned order is a final order because it has finally disposed of a matter of "subordinate enquiry" and therefore, is revisable and the bar of Section 435 (4-a) is not attracted. It is argued that the order effects the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the witness with reference to the record about which privilege had been granted by the learned Special Judge and is 'final' inasmuch as the right to cross-examine the witness with regard to those documents, once lost, cannot be reclaimed in appeal or revision. Mr. Raina has relied upon Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra in support of his assertion that the impugned order is not an 'interlocutory order.'
State Of U.P vs Col. Sujan Singh And Ors on 15 April, 1964
8. In the instant case, however, the impugned order only granted the claim of privilege to the State under Section 123 of the Evidence Act, An order allowing or disallowing a claim of privilege does not put to an end the proceedings in which the order is made. Such an order is only a step in the proceedings and only relates to a procedural matter and does not purport to decide the rights of the parties. Such an order can only be termed as an 'interlocutory order.' This point in any case, is squarely covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of U.P. v. Col. Sujan Singh .
Article 134 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1