- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) alleging that a cheque for Rs 2 lakhs issued by the respondent towards repayment of a loan had dishonoured. After statutory notice and non-payment, prosecution was launched. During trial the appellant was examined and cross-examined as PW-1 on 24-8-2004.
On 20-9-2004 the respondent/accused moved two applications in the trial court: (i) under Section 91 CrPC for production of the appellant’s bank pass-books, income-tax records and LDS deposit receipts, and (ii) under Section 311 CrPC for recalling PW-1 for further cross-examination. The trial court, by order dated 1-10-2004, rejected both applications, holding the documents unnecessary and characterising the defence as one of lost signed cheques.
The respondent challenged these refusals by filing three criminal revision petitions under Section 397 CrPC before the Madras High Court. A learned Single Judge, without issuing notice to the appellant, allowed the revisions and directed production of the documents and recall of the witness. The appellant approached the Supreme Court, resulting in the present appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether orders of a trial court rejecting applications under Sections 91 and 311 CrPC are “interlocutory orders” such that a revision under Section 397 CrPC is barred by Section 397(2) CrPC.
- Whether the High Court erred in allowing the revisions without issuing notice to, or hearing, the complainant-appellant.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court identified two fundamental errors in the High Court’s approach:
- Lack of Notice: The High Court proceeded on the “specious ground” that requiring the complainant to produce documents would cause him no prejudice. The Supreme Court held that, because the documents were personal to the appellant and had been refused by the trial court, elementary fairness mandated that he be heard. Failure to issue notice vitiated the order.
- The trial court’s refusal to summon documents (Section 91) and to recall a witness (Section 311) did not finally decide any rights and were therefore interlocutory. Section 397(2) expressly prohibits revision of interlocutory orders. Consequently, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s revisions. Interference in revisional jurisdiction was therefore “clearly incorrect in law.”
Holding and Implications
HELD: The impugned common order of the Madras High Court is set aside; the appeals are allowed and the trial court’s orders rejecting the Section 91 and Section 311 applications stand restored.
Implications: The decision reiterates that interlocutory orders cannot be challenged in revision under Section 397 CrPC and underscores the necessity of giving notice to an affected party before adverse procedural directions are issued. No new precedent was created, but the ruling reinforces the statutory bar and principles of natural justice.
V.S Sirpurkar, J.— Leave granted. 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 impugned order, the learned Single Judge set aside the three orders passed by the trial court dated 26-7-2004 in Crl. MP No. 3057 of 2004 in CC No. 216 of 2003 and dated 1-4-2004 in Crl. MPs Nos. 4184 and 4185 of 2004 in CC No. 215 of 2003, and allowed those Crl. MPs.
2. Shortly stated, the appellant herein had filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”, 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 in spite of the notice given thereafter, the accused (the respondent herein) had failed to return the money. A trial ensued on the basis of this complaint and the complainant (the appellant herein) was examined as a first witness for the prosecution on 24-8-2004. He was cross-examined also.
3. On 20-9-2004 the respondent herein filed applications under Section 91 CrPC and Section 311 CrPC, seeking directions to produce the bank pass books, income tax accounts and the LDS 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 CrPC 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.
4. Very strangely, the High Court did not even issue notice to the appellant complainant, on the specious 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 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.
5. Secondly, what was not realised was that the orders passed by the trial court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 CrPC, were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) CrPC. 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 CrPC for production of documents and other on the application under Section 311 CrPC 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 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.
Alert