B.Sailesh Saxena v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE Dr JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER Cr im in al Rev ision Case No.1 1 0 0 of 2 0 1 8 ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/ accused, challenging the order, dated 03.04.2018, passed in Crl.M.P.No.341 of 2018 in Crl.M.P.No.2507 of 2017 in Crime No.105 of 2017 of Charminar Police Station, by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC - cum - IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2 .

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the record.

3 .

In view of the decision rendered by a Full Bench of the Apex Court in Gir ish Ku m ar Su n ej a Vs. C.B.I .1, a revision to the High Court against the interlocutory order of the Subordinate Court is expressly barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. where there is no final termination of main proceedings. As per Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., the powers of revision conferred under sub-section

(1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. The power of this Court to entertain a revision is severely curtailed by sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. in respect of interlocutory orders passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings.

1 AIR 2017 SC 3620

4 .

The decision rendered in Gir ish Ku m ar Su n ej a's case (1 supra) holds the field. In paragraph No.38 of the said decision, it is held thus:

"38. The Cr.P.C. is undoubtedly a complete Code in itself. As has already been discussed by us, the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only in respect of final orders and intermediate orders. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only in respect of interlocutory orders to give effect to an order passed under the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to serve the ends of justice. As indicated above, this power has to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and not otherwise. If that is the position, and we are of the view that it is so, resort to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution would be permissible perhaps only in the most extraordinary case. To invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court when the Cr.P.C.

restricts it in the interest of a fair and expeditious trial for the benefit of the accused person, we find it difficult to accept the proposition that since Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are available to an accused person, these provisions should be resorted to in cases that are not the rarest of rare but for trifling issues."

5 .

The discretion given under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. has to be exercised only in respect of final order and intermediate order. The impugned order is an interlocutory order. It is not a final order or intermediate order. So, the bar to file revision, as contemplated under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., applies to the instant case. The appropriate remedy available to the petitioner against the order impugned is not by way of filing this Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C.

6 .

It is also apt to refer to a decision of this Court in Japapala Kr ish n a Vs. St at e of An dh r a Pr adesh t h r ou gh t h e Pu blic Pr osecu t or 2, wherein, this Court also held the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order of cancellation of bail. Under these circumstances, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 7 .

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is at liberty to work out the remedies available under law. The Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order filed along with this Criminal Revision Case to the petitioner.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 20th April, 2018 Bvv 2 Decided on 17.09.2014 in Crl.R.C.No.1804 of 2014