Revision
Ajay Bansal
(Querist) 16 March 2013
This query is : Resolved
An application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for examining a new witness in a criminal case has been dismissed by Magistrate. Is a revision against said dismissal order maintainable in Sessions Court. Please tell latest law.
Ajay Bansal
(Querist) 16 March 2013
An application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for examining a new witness in a criminal case has been dismissed by Magistrate. Is a revision against said dismissal order maintainable in Sessions Court. Please tell latest law.
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Expert) 16 March 2013
Sir Find the link below-
http://www.indiankanoon.org/docfragment/111483626/?formInput=%22revision%22%2C%20%22maintainable%22%2C%20%22311%20cr%20p%20c%22%2C%20
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Expert) 17 March 2013
Sir I no where find that rejection of application of 311 is final order.
I found several judgments that it is interlocutory and no revision lies.
Ajay Bansal
(Querist) 17 March 2013
Please give me latest citations on both sides.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 17 March 2013
Arvind! Application under section 311 is decided finally and no scope is left for its decision thereafter so the revision only lies. If you have any adverse citation to our opinion,oblige all of us by posting here.
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Expert) 17 March 2013
Respected Sir,
paste the following link-
http://www.indiankanoon.org/docfragment/111483626/?formInput=%22revision%22%2C%20%22maintainable%22%2C%20%22311%20cr%20p%20c%22%2C%20
Do guide to me after going through the citation.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 17 March 2013
You are right Arvind and I do amend my reply that order under section 311 Criminal Procedure Code is an interlocutory order against which only appeal lies. See the following judgment:
Supreme Court of India
Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam on 18 March, 2009
Author: V Sirpurkar
Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, V.S. Sirpurkar
"REPORTABLE"
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.486-487 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2688-89 of 2005) Sethuraman .... Appellant Versus
Rajamanickam .... Respondent JUDGMENT
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In these appeals, the common order passed by the Learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in three Criminal Revisions, is in challenge. By the instant order, the Learned Single Judge set aside the three orders passed by the Trial Court dated 26.7.2004 in Crl.M.P. No. 3057 of 2004 in C.C. No. 216 of 2003 and dated 1.4.2004 in Crl.M.P. Nos. 4184 and 4185 of 2004 in C.C. No. 215 of 2003, and allowed those Crl.M.Ps. Shortly stated, the appellant herein had filed a criminal complaint 2
under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.' for short), complaining therein that a cheque signed by the respondent and given for returning the amount of Rs.2 lakhs, which was a loan, was bounced and inspite of the notice given thereafter, the accused (respondent herein) had failed to return the money. A Trial ensued on the basis of this complaint and the complainant (appellant herein) was examined as a first witness for the prosecution on 24.8.2004. He was cross-examined also. On 20.9.2004, the respondent herein filed applications under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking directions to produce the Bank Pass Books, Income Tax Accounts and the L.D.S. deposit receipts of the appellant, as also for recalling him for cross- examination. This was objected to by a Reply dated 24.9.2004. The Court passed an order on 1.10.2004, rejecting the applications made by the respondent/accused. The respondent/accused filed Criminal Revisions before the High Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and the High Court, by the impugned common order, proceeded to allow the same. It is this order, which has fallen for consideration before us in these appeals.
3. Very strangely, the High Court did not even issue notice to the appellant/complainant, on the spacious ground that the production of the documents, which was sought for by the accused, would cause no prejudice to the appellant/complainant. We fail to understand this logic. After all, if the documents in possession of the appellant/complainant, which were his personal documents, sought for by the accused and the 3
production of which was rejected by the Trial Court, and which were ordered to be produced by the High Court, at least a hearing should have been given to the appellant/complainant. He could have shown, firstly, that no such documents existed or that there was no basis for the production of those documents, particularly, in view of the fact that he was not even cross-examined in respect of those documents. On this ground, the order of the High Court would have to be set aside.
4. Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 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 4
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. .................................................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]
.................................................J. [V.S. Sirpurkar]
New Delhi
March 18, 2009
5
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 17 March 2013
That is good.
But how Mr. Bansal would react to his own standing answer "SEE AIR MANUAL" had it been a query posed before him?
Does every body recall his responses?
At least Mr.Ramachandran must be.
Am I right Mr. Anirudh?
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 17 March 2013
If an expert finds anything for his own knowledge, he should be ready to adopt as this is also a study class for all of us. I always regard myself as a student of law hence I try to learn.
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Expert) 17 March 2013
Thanks Raj Sir thanks for apex court's judgment on this point.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 17 March 2013
It's good to listen.
There is no end to learning.
