Bhupinder Bahadur Singh v. State Of Haryana & ORS
!
"#"$%"& '(
*)
$'('+(,"& '(
*)
-+./(&"$
0-0&+$ )))"1/1/'("$ 2"$#+# 3101"
'4 0$50(0 0(& 0('1-"$ )))"#.'(&"(1# 6 7 ) 3 3
!
"
#
&&&& 3
8 ) 7!
'
(
*" "
+,% ) ) '-./
1) 2 *"3 4
'5 %6'.0# 7'3
*"
*" % *" '- 6- %6'.0# 7%3
*" ')
/'')
" 89:* $ ;-, '.
'% %66, +%6+65+5.+5,+.' 9) )<
*
: ,.;666=7
"
6+ %6'% *" )
# " " 6/ %6'. *" ) 9
>7% "
)
>7, "
)
>7; "? @
# # :
@ ( )
@
'- 6- %6'.
$ % * '5 %6'.
/ < inter alia,
)
*
/'') " :
! " ! " # $ %
'
*
$ ($ !
)$ * )&+ , )
-.
/ * $ 1*
-.
* & 1
+
<
6+ %6'%
"
* *" ( )
"
@
:
* " " *"
@ *"
#
( # "
/'' )
"
" ;
%
# >7%7# >7;?
>7,
)
# >
@ > :
"
> *"
/22$ "
3 % 0%
, 4 * *5'
/''
* "
!
* "
) *" *"
" * /-.0%3 /-.0%3) A "(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." .
! * *" !2*
)
+ 7 BSecondly, what was not realised was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code, were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) of Criminal Procedure Code The Trial Court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent/accused and the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques were lost and that the appellant
complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders, i.e., one on the application under Section 91 Criminal Procedure Code for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed."
,
!
# #-
"""
-
, $ !
(- 5*6*" !2*!
* 7 "11. Reliance can also be placed upon
&$ , 4$ + 7-% -.
)$ ,
$
!
6 9" ""
'
'
decided by the coordinate bench of this court, wherein, it was observed that no revision lies against an interlocutory order.
12. The intent of section 311 Cr.P.C. is to empower the court to make a fair evaluation at every instance. The court has been entrusted with this authority so that justice be administered without being constrained by the specifics of the legislation. It makes no difference whether a witness has been cross examined by the party seeking to recall them or whether all of the evidence has been closed or not. The question for the court is whether calling back such a witness and presenting evidence is necessary for a fair resolution of the case. This alone demonstrates how the preceding ruling on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
cannot be regarded as final. The court may permit a witness to be summoned if, at a later stage, it determines that recalling the witness was required for a just resolution of the matter.
13. It is trite law that an order passed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is purely an interlocutory order and a revision against an interlocutory order is clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the revision petitions preferred before Ld. ASJ were not maintainable and thus, the present petitions filed against the final outcome of the said revision petitions are again not maintainable."
-
9
!2* # 's case (supra) @ *" ) C /22$ " 3 % 0% 's case (supra) : "
'5 %6'.
*" * 7 *
"
3
:
%'
6/ %6%+ vishnu > @= D=$ > * D=$