S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.1232/2004 Stephen D.Silva Vs.State of Raj. And Anr. Dated : 21.01.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. LL Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, PP for the State. Mr. HS Khandelwal for respondent No.2. ***
REPORTABLE
By way of this petition filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 25th September, 2004 rendered by Special Judge, Fake Currency Notes, Jaipur City, Jaipur wherein it has been observed that the order dated 15th December, 2003 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur City (North), Jaipur was not a final order and it was an interlocutory order, hence, the revision did not lie.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the relevant material on record.
3. The sole crucial question springing for consideration in the instant case is that as to whether the order dated 15th December, 2003 rendered by Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur city (North), Jaipur is an interlocutory order or a final order ?.
-2-
4. A perusal of the order reveals that under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C., trial Court issued a notice to both the parties asking them to appear in Court and furnish written reply as to why the disputed land should not be attached and a receiver thereupon be appointed ?
5. In the case of M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Bhiwani Denm and Apparels Ltd. and ors. reported in 2001 Cr.L.J. SC 851, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
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 exercised in relation to any interlocutory order. Whether an order is interlocutory or not, cannot be decided by merely looking a 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 moves 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.
6. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that on complaint filed by the police, the
-3-
Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur City (North), Jaipur issued notices to both the parties asking them to appear in the Court and submit objections, if any, with regard to the fact as to whether the disputed property should be attached and receiver be appointed thereon. It was incumbent for both the parties to appear before the Court and file objections if they had any. The petitioner instead of putting his appearance himself or through his pleader before the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur City (North)Jaipur, he filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court vide its impugned judgment found that the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur City (North), Jaipur was not a final order and it was an interlocutory order. I am in consonance with this finding arrived at by the revisional Court. All the arguments advanced before the revisional Court could be advanced before the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur City (North), Jaipur also. The proceedings pending before the Additional District Magistrate did not culminate. Only a notice is found to have been issued. This order of issuing notice did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. No miscarriage of justice can be apprehended by issuing a notice. The learned revisional Court rightly observed that
-4-
the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur city (North), Jaipur was not a final order and it was an interlocutory order. It goes without saying that no revision lies against an interlocutory order under Sub-Section 2 of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The impugned order is found to be perfectly just and cogent. It does not suffer from any infirmity and to my firm view, it calls for no interference.
7. In the result, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C being bereft of any merit stands dismissed and the impugned order is maintained.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI)J.
Pcg