INTRODUCTION
It is to be pointed out that all the orders of criminal court are subjected to scrutiny of Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the Code, there are Revisional, Appellate jurisdiction besides inherent power u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., and complete superintendence of subordinate criminal court u/s. 438 Cr.P.C., have been given in order to render substantial justice. Now, the point for discussion is whether all orders of subordinate criminal courts are subject to Revisional jurisdiction or not. Is there any bar or restriction to invoke the Revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.
DISCUSSION
No doubt all the orders of criminal court are subjected to close scrutiny of the high court and especially complete superintendence on the subordinate criminal court has been conferred u/s. 483 of Cr.P.C., on the High Court and Revisional jurisdiction has been subjected to bar created u/s. 397(2) Cr.P.C.. For easy reference Section 397(2 Cr.P.C is given below.
Section 397Cr.P.C., – Calling for records to exercise powers of revision – ……………..(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
In general, revisional power has been vested with the High Court and the Court of Session, but the same cannot be exercised insofar as relating to interlocutory orders are concerned. The said provision clearly bar for exercising revisional jurisdiction on an interlocutory, so we have to define what is meant by interlocutory or what is the definition of interlocutory order in order to have better understanding of bar created u/s. 397(2) Cr.P.C.
The term interlocutory order has not been defined in the code, it has been noted in the case reported in Parameswari Devi Vs State – AIR 1977 SC 403= 1977 SCC CRL. 74 . Since the term interlocutory order has not been defined it is very difficult to come to a conclusion as to whether we are challenge a particular order under revisional jurisdiction or not. This doubt arising in mind can be rectified if legislators introduce definition clause or introduce list of interlocutory orders that are amenable to revision u/s. 397 Cr.P.C. Now, we can understand the same from decided cases.
No doubt a law must be clear cogent and should not give any confusion. Since, the term interlocutory order has not been defined nor can we gather meaning of interlocutory order from the language of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. So, we are under some confusion whether to file revision case or to challenge under inherent powers of High Court.
It is to be pointed out here that the learned judicial magistrates during pre-cognizance stage and post-cognizance stage have been passing many orders like remanding an accused to police custody, bail orders, interim custody of property, issuing summons and order u/s. 91 Cr.P.C., discharge of an accused and other orders both at the hands of prosecution and accused. Since there is no definition of interlocutory only after getting rejection of Revisional Court that revision is barred u/s. 397(2) Cr.P.C., we are able to move an application under inherent powers of High Court, so parties right to move sessions court is lost and one more right to move High Court is also lost. So the law makers have to think to define interlocutory order. Delayed justice is denied justice because of this confusion in many maters, parties cannot file proper case before court concerned.
Examples of interlocutory orders
Summoning of witness and bail orders are interlocutory orders.
Amarnath Vs State – 1977 SCC Crl.585 . The orders issued during the pendency of proceedings without reaching any finality such as summoning of witness releasing an accused on bail are interlocutory orders.
In Sethuraman Vs Rajamanickam – 3. 2009 2 SCC Crl. 627 reported in, it has been held that orders issued u/s. 91 and 311 Cr.P.C., are interlocutory orders.
In Rajendra kumar sitaram pande Vs Uttam – AIR 1999 SC 1028 = 1999(3) SCC 134 it has been held that the order directing issuance of summon is purely interlocutory order and so revision is barred.
Remedy against interlocutory orders
It is needless to say that the aggrieved person on the interlocutory orders are not remediless, they can very well invoke the jurisdiction of high court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., as decided in the following cases.
i) Prem & others Vs Budharam – 2000 Crl.LJ 790
ii) H.Mohammed Ibrahim Vs State – 2008(2) MLJ Crl. 394
iii) Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Ram Kishan rohtagi and other – AIR 1983 SC 67
Section 482 Cr.P.C., has a different parameter and this provision is not controlled by Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. So in appropriate case, the High Court can interfere with the interlocutory order u/s. 482 Cr.P.C.
CONCLUSION
As discussed above it is just and necessary to define the term interlocutory orders in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
