Revision sought against interlocutory order of NBW held not maintainable.

Facts in Brief:

1. Ld. CMM has issued the NBW against the revisionist/accused.

2. On 08.01.2015 revisionist/accused was out of station for his official work, his counsel appeared and apprised the court that matter was required to be transferred but Ld.

3. Trial court declined to accept the exemption application of revisionist and attendance of his counsel was also not marked and NBWs were issued.

4. It has been prayed that impugned order may be set aside

Court held as under:

5. On considering the arguments of Ld. counsel for revisionist and on perusal of trial court record, I find that revision is not maintainable. The reasons which support my decision are firstly that the impugned order comes in the category of interlocutory order.

6. Secondly, revision against this interlocutory order is also not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 397(2) of the Code.

7. Thirdly, same is also not maintainable in view of the provisions of law laid down in case M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. M/s Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 3625 : (2001 Cri LJ 4250),

8. A three judge Bench of this Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 : (1977) 4 SCC 551 : (1978 Cri LJ165); laid down the following test : "An order rejecting the plea of the accused on a point which, when accepted; will conclude the particular proceeding, will surely be not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 (2). This was upheld by the court Judge Bench of this Court in V.C. Shukla vs State through C.B.I, AIR 1980 SC 962 : 1980 Suppl SCC 92 : (1980 Cri LJ 690)."

9. Consequent upon the above discussion and reasons, the revision is dismissed as not maintainable.

Case Refeerence-Goyal Associate vs Indian Overseas

IN THE COURT OF DR. T. R. NAVAL, DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI