Order under revision is neither a final order or an intermediate order

Yugashree | School of Law Sastra deemed to be University, Thanjavur | 27th March 2020

Dadiba Kali Pundole vs. M/S Bid and Hammer Auctioneers 

Facts:

• The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of Trial court filed criminal revision petition. Before High court of Bengaluru under section 397 read with section 491 of Cr.P.C. He appeared as accused after taking cognizance by the trial court for the offence of Defamation under section 499 and punishable under section 500 of IPC.
• The petitioner before the HC filed criminal petition to quash the proceedings in the meanwhile he has applied for Interlocutory Application under section 6(2)(f) of the passport act in trial court and after hearing both the parties the trial court allowed IA and directed the petitioner to approach passport authority for getting passport and petitioner obtained passport and on expiry of one year for which the passport has been issued petitioner filed IA for renewal of passport before the trial court and it was dismissed by the trial court.
• The dismissal order made by the trial court was contended by the petitioner stating that there is no significant ground relaxation of condition for issuing passport and renewing passport under section6(2)(F) of the Passport Act and the petitioner is required to travel abroad for his professional work and  the prayer was made on that aspect before HC.
• There is a bar under section 397(2) of Cr.P.C as it was an IA and the revision can’t be entertained by the court. If a passport has been issued to the petitioner pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the passport may only be issued for one year if the criminal case is pending and for the purpose of renewal only if the petitioner is not allowed to travel abroad for the said one year. And the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief even on the merits. And the defendant prayed for dismissal of the revision petition

Observation by the Court:

             The court admitted the facts that the petitioner is accused before the trial court for the complaint filed by the respondent, previously petitioner filed before the trial court with regard to issue of passport an passport issued with 2 conditions by the respective authority that the petitioner should not leave the country before the disposal of the case and he shall appear before the court on all hearings.

                The petitioner being aggrieved by the condition filed criminal revision petition before the trail court and the court relaxed the condition that he shall not leave the country and the passport authority has issued passport for a year however no time limit was mentioned by the court in this regard. The petitioner once again filed IA which was dismissed. The court considered whether the revision petition is maintainable or not as there is bar under section 397(2). But the petitioner argued that the order under revision is not interlocutory order by citing few cases in that regard. One of them is Girish Kumar Suneja’s case The Court will pass, intermediate and interlocutory three types of orders. There is no question that a Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction with respect to a final order of acquittal or conviction in respect of a final order. There is also no question that the Court cannot exercise its revision power with respect to an interlocutory order. As regards an interim order, the Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction, as it is not an interlocutory order.

In Amar Nath Vs State of Haryana the significance is for 2 reasons 1^st historical background and 2^nd justification for restrictive meaning under section 482 of Cr.P.C. As far as the historical background is concerned, it was pointed out that the Criminal Procedure Code gave wide powers to the High Court to interfere with orders passed in criminal cases by the subordinate courts. These wide powers were restricted by the High Court and this Court, as matter of prudence and not as a matter of law, to an order that “suffered from any error of law or any legal infirmity causing injustice or prejudice to the accused or was manifestly foolish or perverse”. This led to the courts being flooded with cases challenging all kinds of orders and thereby delaying prosecution of a case to the detriment of an accused person.

Judgement

The court opined that the order under revision is neither a final order which has the effect of terminating the proceedings nor it has the effect of intermediate order.  IA filed by the petitioner in the pending proceedings, which is nothing but an interlocutory application and order is interlocutory in nature. The application has nothing to do with the pending case and it is an independent interlocutory application. Therefore, the revision is not maintainable. The petition is not maintainable as the order under challenge is an interlocutory order, this Court need not give any findings on the merits of the case and need not required to consider the case on merits when the criminal case filed against the petitioner