Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/471/2008 3/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 471 of 2008
=========================================================
CHETANKUMAR
SURESCHANDRA SHAH - Applicant(s)
Versus
DHIRUBHAI
TRIBHOVANDAS SHAH & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KUNAL S SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR KC SHAH,
ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 11/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner seeks permission to place on record copy of notice dated
14.8.2006 given by respondents to petitioners. The document is
ordered to be taken on record.
2. The
petitioner-original complainant has preferred this Revision
Application under section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 and challenged the order passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.6, Bharuch below
Exh-38 on 18.6.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2007.
3. The
petitioner complainant lodged complaint under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. After hearing, the trial Court convicted
the respondents accused and sentenced them.
4. Feeling
aggrieved by the said decision, the respondents preferred Criminal
Appeal No.27 of 2007 before learned Additional Sessions Judge and
Fast Track Court, Bharuch. The respondents filed application Exh-38
for a direction to Nazir of the Court to accept Rs.75,000/- being the
amount of cheque contending that they were prepared to pay cheque
amount of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant but on account of their
financial condition, could not pay the same. It is also averred in
the application that the respondents accused are prepared to deposit
the amount of cheque in the Court and have no objection if the said
amount is paid to the complainant.
5. After
hearing, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his impugned
order, allowed the application and permitted the respondents accused
to deposit the amount. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the
petitioner complainant has preferred this Revision Application.
6. I
have heard learned advocate Mr.B.A.Surti for learned advocate
Mr.Kunal S. Shah for the petitioner.
7. It
appears from the impugned order that the respondents accused showed
their desire to deposit the amount of cheque in the Court and the
Court permitted them to deposit the amount. Learned advocate Mr.Surti
has submitted that by the impugned order petitioner is compelled to
compound the offence. The copy of the application does not indicate
that the amount was sought to be deposited with a view to compel the
petitioner to compound the offence. Even compounding of offence can
not be unilateral. Therefore, by merely permitting the respondents
accused to deposit the amount,it cannot be said that the petitioner
is compelled to compound the offence. The impugned order except
permitting deposit of amount does not finally decide any right of
petitioner. Therefore order under challenge is an interlocutory
order. In the decision of Amar Nath and others Vs. State of Haryana
and others reported in AIR 1977 SCC 2185 Hon’ble Supreme Court held
as under:-
?SThe
term ?Sinterlocutory order?? in Section 397(2) has been used in a
restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely
denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not
decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the
parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the
accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to
be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court
against that order, because that would be against the very object
which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in
Section 397. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses,
adjourning cases, passing orders for bail , calling for reports and
such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt
amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie
under Section 397(2). But orders which are matters of moment and
which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular
aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to
be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court.?S
8. In
view above legal preposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
the order under challenge being interlocutory order, no Revision
Application would lie. Therefore, the present application cannot be
entertained.
9. It
is observed in the impugned order that it is for the complainant to
settle the matter or not and whether to withdraw the amount deposited
in the Court. Therefore, the Court has only permitted the respondents
accused to deposit the amount and has not compelled the petitioner
complainant either to compound the offence or to withdraw the
amount. Therefore by the impugned order, no prejudice is likely to be
caused to the petitioner complainant.
10. In
view of above,this application does not merit acceptance. Hence,
application fails and stands dismissed.
(Bankim
N. Mehta, J.)
sudhir
Top