On November 15, 1976, the learned Judicial Magistrate, on receiving the order of the Sessions Judge, issued summons to the, appellants straightaway.
It appears that the companyplainant filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karnal releasing the appellants, but the same was dismissed on July 3, 1976.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 14 2 77 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl.
The police, after holding investigations, submitted a charge sheet against the other accused persons except the appellants against whom the police opined that numbercase at all was made out as number weapon was recovered number was there any clear evidence about the participation of the appellants.
Then came the companyplaint by respondent No.
In the first place, so far as the appellants are companycerned, the police had submitted its final report against them and they were released by the Judicial Magistrate.
The, teamed Magistrate, after having examined the companyplainant and going through the record, dismissed the, companyplaint as he was satisfied that numbercase was made out against the appellants.
The appeal arises in the following circumstances.
The police thus submitted its final report under s. 173 of the 1973 Code insofar as the appellants were companycerned.
A revision against that order to the Additional Sessions Judge preferred by the companyplainant had failed.
It cannot, therefore, be said that the appellants were number at all prejudiced, ,or that any right of theirs was number involved by the impugned order.
Class, Karnal, who after perusing the same set the appellants at liberty after having accepted the report.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Mookerjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for the Appellants.
Thus the appellants, by virtue of the order of the Judicial Magistrate as affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge ,acquired a valuable right of number being put on trial unless a proper order was made against them.
124 of 1977.
For the purpose of brevity, we shall refer to the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1898 as the 1898 Code,, to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as amended in 1955 as the 1955 Amendment and to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as the 1973 Code.
Petition No.
6070 of 1976.
1 Anand Prakash and S. C. Patel, for Respondent No.
The informant filed a regular companyplaint before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, on July 1, 1976 against all the 11 accused including the appellants.
2 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave involves an important question as to the interpretation, scope, ambit and companynotation of the word interlocutory order as appearing In sub S. 2 of S. 397 ,of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
S. Marwah, for Respondent No.
139 dated April 22 4 23, 1976 was filed at police station Butana, District Karnal at about 5 30 P.M. The F.I.R. mentioned a number of accused persons in including the appellants as having participated in the occurrence which resulted in the death of the deceased.
This was undoubtedly a valuable right which the appellants possessed and which was being denied to them by the impugned order.
So long as the Judicial Magistrate had number passed this order, numberproceedings were started against the appellants, number were ,any such proceedings pending against them.
The report was placed before Mr. B. K. Gupta the Judicial Magistrate, 1st.
It was only with the passing of the impugned order that the proceedings started and the question of the appellants being put up for trial arose for the first time.
An incident took place in village Amin on April 23, 1976 in the companyrse of which three persons died and F.I.R. No.
The term interlocutory order is a term of well known legal significance and does number present any serious diffident.
Thereafter the companyplainant took up the matter in revision before the Sessions Judge, Karnal, who this time accepted the revision petition and remanded the case to the Judicial Magistrate for further enquiry.
The appellants then moved the High Court under s. 482 and s. 397 of the 1973 Code for quashing the order of the Judicial Magistrate mainly on the ground that the Magistrate had issued the summons in a mechanical manner without applying his judicial mind to the facts of the case.
