Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2017 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 690 - HC - Money LaunderingMaintainability of Revision petition under Section 397 r/w.401 Cr.P.C - Held that:- Section 397(1) Cr.P.C empowers High Court and Sessions court to call for and examine the records of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. Sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. But Section 397 (2) imposed a bar for exercising the revisional jurisdiction in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. Whether the order passed by the court below dismissing the petition filed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C seeking default bail is an interlocutory order or final order? - Held that:- The order of rejecting the plea of the accused seeking bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C will not conclude the above proceedings, as the right of the petitioners to come out on bail was not finally determined by the Special Court. In Amar Nath's case(1977 (7) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT), the Hon'ble Supreme court has specifically held that passing any orders in a bail petition is only an interlocutory, against which, no revision would lie under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. In the above circumstances, have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the Special Court rejecting the petitiners' application is only an interlocutory order, and in view of the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C, petitioners cannot maintain a revision petition, before this Court. This revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone.
|