IN THE COURT OF DR. [ENTITY], ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI [CASE NUMBER] Unique Case I.D. No.02402R0071062012 Date of Institution :13.03.2012 Date of Arguments :27.07.2012 Date of Order :28.07.2012 Sh. [ENTITY] Revisionist Versus Smt. [ENTITY] & Ors. Respondent ORDER
This order will dispose off a revision against the order dated 13.02.2012 passed by Ms. [ENTITY], Ld. M.M. (Mahila Court), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby she closed the defence of the revisionist in case titled as [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] under the provisions of [ACT].
2. I have heard arguments of Ld. Counsel for revisionist and perused file. I have also heard Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for state/R-2. I did not have opportunity of hearing arguments of Ld. Counsel for R-1 as none for her appeared.
3. On perusal of impugned order, I find that both the parties with their respective counsels appeared. Attorney on behalf of respondent was filed as WS was not filed on behalf of respondent. Ld. M.M. struck the defence of defendant observing that respondent was delaying the disposal of the case. Matter was fixed for exparte evidence for 09.04.2012. Having aggrieved of that order, present revision was filed.
4. The impugned order has been assailed on the grounds, inter-alia, that Ld. M.M. passed the impugned order in haste without considering the fact that it was the first time when direction to respondent for personal appearance was given; besides, Ld. M.M. violated the principles of natural justice; non filing of WS was neither intentional nor deliberate; if revisionist is not granted an opportunity to defend his case, he will have to suffer; respondent could not filed the written statement as he was resident of Mumbai. It has been prayed that impugned order may be set aside to avoid miscarriage of justice.
5. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/R-2 that opportunities to file written statement were afforded but he failed to avail the same and could not filed the written statement. The order of Ld. M.M. is just & proper. There is no merit in the revision and it is liable for dismissal. He prayed for dismissal of revision.
6. On perusal of trial court record, I find that revisionist/applicant has already filed an application for taking on record written statement which was fixed for 24.03.2012. That application is still pending for disposal before Ld. M.M.
7. It would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of [SECTION] of the code which run as under:
"397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.-(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding."
8. In case of [PRECEDENT], AIR 2001 SC 3625:
(2001 Cri LJ 4250), the Apex Court observed that:
"Para 8 : The interdict contained in [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short 'the Code') 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 the interlocutory stage. The safe test laid down by this Court through a series of decisions is this; if the contention of the petitioner who moved the superior Court in revision, as against the order under challenge is upheld, would the criminal proceedings as a whole culminate ? If it would, then the order is not interlocutory in spite of the fact that it was passed during any interlocutory stage.
9. A three Judge Bench of this Court in [PRECEDENT]; laid down the following test :
"An order rejecting the plea of the accused on a point which, when accepted; will conclude the particular proceeding, will surely be not an interlocutory order within the meaning of [SECTION]. This was upheld by the four Judge Bench of this Court in V. C. Shukla v. State through C. B. I., AIR 1980 SC 962 : 1980 Suppl SCC 92 : (1980 Cri LJ
690)."
9. In view of the test laid down in case [PRECEDENT], (supra), I am of the view that the impugned order falls in the category of interlocutory order. As such, the present revision against impugned order which is an interlocutory order is not maintainable as per provisions of [SECTION] of the Code.
10. In view of the above reasons and discussion, revision is dismissed as not maintainable.
11. Parties are directed to appear before Ms. [ENTITY], Ld. M.M. (Mahila Court),/successor court on 01.08.2012 for further hearing on the above referred application and further proceedings as per law.
12. Trial Court Record be returned with the copy of this order.
13. Revision file be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the Open Court on 28.07.2012 (DR. [ENTITY]) Additional Sessions Judge-02,East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi