Chattisgarh High Court
Devendra Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRR No.145 of 2023
Devendra Kumar Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh
16.02.2023
Shri Uttam Pandey, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sushil Sahu, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Registry has pointed out following defaults:
01. Offences under Sections of the IPC and the POCSO Act,
are wrongly mentioned in para No.1, as per Annexure A/1
(page 10).
02. This case is not maintainable, in view of Section 397 of the
Cr.P.C.
03.1 Details of non-applicnt are incomplete in cause title (Page
1).
03.2 Name of District is incomplete in the particulars of the
applicant, as per Office Note dated 02.02.2023 and Additional
Registrar (Judicial) note dated 06.02.2023.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that he will
rectify the defaults No. 1 to 3 within a period of seven days. With
regard to default No.2, he would submit that the order passed by
the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Balod is not an
interlocutory order as the application under Section 27 of the
Cr.P.C. was moved on the ground that on the date of incident, the
applicant had not completed 18 years of age. The documents
were produced before the learned Court below. The learned Court
below vide order dated 05.11.2022, rejected the application,
against which the present revision has been preferred. Learned
counsel for the applicant would submit that this criminal revision is
maintainable as the learned Court has decided the right of the
applicant, therefore, it cannot be termed as an interlocutory order.
He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Amar Nath and others
v. State of Haryana and another1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while dealing with the provision of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.
has held in para - 6 which reads as under:-
"6.Let us now proceed to interpret the provisions
of Section 397 against the historical background
of these facts. Sub- section (2) of Section 397 of
the 1973 Code may be extracted thus :
"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."
The main question which falls for determination in
this appeal is as to, the what is the connotation of
the term "interlocutory order" as appearing in sub-
section (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision
of such an order by the High Court. The term
"interlocutory order" is a term of well-known legal
significance and does not present any serious
diffident. It has been used in various statutes
including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters
Patent of the High Courts and other like statutes.
In Webster's New World Dictionary "interlocutory"
has been defined as an order other than final
(1977) 4 SCC 137
decision. Decided cases have laid down that
interlocutory orders to be appealable must be
those which decide 'the rights and liabilities of the
parties concerning a particular aspect. It seems
to, us that 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, right of
the accused, or decides certain rights of the
parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order
so as to bar a revision to the High Court against
that order, 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
witnesses, adjourning cases, passing 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 of
the High Court."
Considering the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Amar Nath (supra) and nature of the order
passed by the learned Court below, it appears that it is not an
interlocutory order and right of the applicant has been decided,
therefore, criminal revision is maintainable against the order
passed by the learned trial Court, whereby, application under
Section 27 of the CrPC has been rejected.
List this case for order on admission after seven days, if
defaults are rectified by the counsel for the applicant.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nadim
