IN THE COURT OF DR. [ENTITY], ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI [CASE NUMBER] Date of Institution :13.02.2012 Date of Arguments :17.02.2012 Date of Order :18.02.2012 Mr. [ENTITY] Revisionist Versus M/s [ENTITY] Respondent ORDER
This order will dispose of a revision for setting aside order dated 07.02.2012 passed by Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. M.M., Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
2. I have heard arguments of counsels for parties and perused file as well as trial court record.
3. On perusal of impugned order I find that an application for exemption of accused/revisionist from personal appearance was filed on 07.02.2012 by Ld. Defence Counsel. Ld. M.M. vide impugned order dismissed the application observing that conduct of the accused was highly unsatisfactory in the case and the application for exemption was not supported by any document. Consequently NBW against accused/revisionist and notice to his surety were issued. Having aggrieved from that order accused/revisionist filed present revision.
4. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that Ld. M.M. did not appreciate that non appearance of accused was neither intentional nor deliberate but it was due to a bonafide reason i.e. due to illness of his son. The impugned order is passed in mechanical order without appreciating the established principles of law and without application of judicial mind. It has been prayed that impugned order may set aside.
5. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of the respondent/complainant that accused/revisionist was repeatedly absenting from the court. He did not show any justifiable reason for his exemption. Ld. M.M. legally, correctly and properly passed the impugned order. Respondent prayed for dismissal of revision.
6. On perusal of trial court record I find that an application dated 07.02.2012 for exemption of accused [ENTITY] was filed on the ground that he was not well. Medical certificate or medical prescription was not attached with the application. Accused absented in the case on 16.07.2010, 29.09.2010, 19.10.2010, 02.02.2011, and 07.02.2012.
7. In case of M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd., 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)."
8. Turning to the case in hand, I find that impugned order is an interlocutory order. Besides Ld. M.M. passed the NBW and dismissed the application for exemption, keeping in view the highly unsatisfactory previous conduct of the accused. I do not find any illegality, impropriety, infirmity, or inaccuracy in the impugned order.
9. In view of the above reasons and discussion, I am of the view that there is no infirmity, illegality or inaccuracy in the impugned order and there is no merit in the revision. Therefore, revision is dismissed.
10. Parties are directed to appear before Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. M.M./Successor Court on the date already fixed by Ld. M.M. or on 28.02.2012 which ever is earlier.
11. Trial court record be returned along with copy of this order.
12. Revision file be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the Open Court on 18.02.2012 (DR. [ENTITY]) Additional Sessions Judge-02,East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi