IN THE COURT OF DR. T. R. NAVAL, DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI C.R. No. 38/15 Unique Identification No. 02402R0180382015 Ram Pal Revisionist Versus Pappu & Ors. Respondents
Date of institution : 25.05.2015 Date of Arguments : 26.11.2015 Date of Order : 26.11.2015 Order
This order will dispose off a revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, herein after referred to as 'the Code", against the order dated 30.01.2015 passed by Ms. Mayuri Singh, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi in complaint case No. 423/7/13 titled as Ram Pal vs. Pappu & Ors.
2. I have heard arguments of Ld. counsel for revisionist and perused trial court record.
3. On perusal of trial court record, I find that Ld. MM passed following order:
"30.01.2015 Present : Complainant in person.
Both accused with counsel.
Till date complainant has not made payment of cost nor shown receipt in the court. Today also his counsel is not available and adjournment is sought.
Be put up or pre charge evidence by way of last and final opportunity to the complainant and subject to additional cost of Rs.1000/- to be deposited in DLSA for 27.06.2015.
(MAYURI SINGH) MM-03/(SHD)/KKD/Delhi:30.01.2015"
Having aggrieved of that order the revisionist preferred present revision.
4. The impugned order has been assailed on the grounds, inter alia, that impugned order has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice; he does not have any other remedy; and non availability of counsel of complainant was neither intentional nor deliberate. It has been prayed that impugned order may be set aside and cost may be waived off.
5. On considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of file, I find that revision is not maintainable as the impugned order comes under the category of interlocutory order and revision against interlocutory order is not maintainable as per provisions of Section 397(2) of the Code.
6. It would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Section 397 of the Code which run as under :
"397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.-(1) The High Court of 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."
7. My decision also finds support by principles of law laid down in case of M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. M/s Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 3625 : (2001 Cri LJ 4250), wherein the Apex Court observed that :
"Para 8 : The interdict contained in Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') is that the powers of revision shall not be exercise 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 Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 : (1977) 4 SCC 551 : (1978 Cri LJ
165); 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 397 (2). This was upheld by the court Judge Bench of this Court in V.C. Shukla vs State through C.B.I, AIR 1980 SC 962 : 1980 Suppl SCC 92 : (1980 Cri LJ 690)."
(Emphasis is supplied)
8. Consequent upon the above reasons and discussion, it is held that revision is not sustainable in law. Revision/petition is, therefore, dismissed.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Ms. Mayuri Singh, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, KKD Courts/successor court, on 09.12.2015 for further orders.
Trial Court record be returned with a copy of this order.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (Dr. T.R. NAVAL) on 26th day of November, 2015 District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi.