very urgent ,Revision against magistrate order
vinod bansal
(Querist) 15 August 2010
This query is : Resolved
R/experts I am representing accused in complaint us 138 NI Act,on last date i filed exemption application due to absence of accused .Magistrate declined my request and cancelled bail bond and issued Non Bailable Warrant.Revision against this order before Sessions court is maintainable or not.Kindly suggest any citation.Thanks in advance
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 15 August 2010
Yes maintainable and no citation is required, but you have repeated the same query again.
s.subramanian
(Expert) 16 August 2010
No. The order passed under Sec.317 Cr.P.C. is only an interlocutory order against which no revision lies under Sec.397 of Cr.P.C. Hence you cannot file a revision at all. The law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye's case makes it clear that revision can be filed against only a final order and not against an interlocutory order.
vinod bansal
(Querist) 16 August 2010
R/Barman Ji
Due to contradictory opinion i forced to post this query again,any way thankyou very much for suggestion.I think Mr. Subramanian Sir is more clear regarding my query because i tried to search judgments of Apex Court and Highcourts in this matter but i failed to trace out any citationj in which revision was filed before sessions judge in given facts,any how,lets try further for accurate answer,Thankyou very much again Mr. Barman ji and Subramanian Sir for enlighten me.
Vinod Bansal Adv Jind Haryana
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 16 August 2010
No lower court can not pass NBW against a bailable offense. The order is obtained by FRAUD by opposite side and on this point you can go in revision.
We do it routinely.
H. S. Thukral
(Expert) 22 August 2010
The term “interlocutory order” in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code 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 rights of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision. because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning 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) of the 1973 Code. 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.
Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1977 AIR (SC) 2185
In view of the above observation of SC in the aforesaid case I am of the opinion that revision shall lie from the order of Magistrate.
